OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Nottingham Corporation Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

HUNTER COMMISSION REPORT.

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the Hunter Com mission Report will be published, and whether it will be published simultaneously in England and in India?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Report will be published simultaneously in England and in India at the earliest possible date, but I cannot at present give a definite date.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the evidence be published at the same time?

Mr. FISHER: I must have notice of that question.

MOHAMMED ALI.

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked whether Mohammed Ali, who is reported to have been interned in India for correspondence with the enemy during the War, has arrived in England, and, if so, has he been received at the India Office?

Mr. FISHER: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley on the 10th March, Mohammed Ali has arrived in England as a member of the Indian Khalifat Deputation. The Deputation has been received by myself on behalf of the Secretary of State for India.

Colonel YATE: Was it not the case in 1913 that Lord Crewe, when Sccretary of State, refused to receive this same man, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he did not adopt the same procedure?

Mr. FISHER: Mohammed Ali had been already received by the Viceroy of India, and in those circumstances I thought it right to receive him here.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is he not going to be received by the Prime Minister tomorrow?

Mr. FISHER: Yes.

Sir J. D. REES: Is he not covered by the Amnesty, like almost everyone who has offended?

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Prime Minister that this man, who has been interned for communicating with the enemy, is not a man who should be received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that there is no truth at all in the statement that he communicated with the enemy, and is he not an ordinary agitator, who has had no dealings with Germany at all? Is that not true?

Mr. FISHER: I think it is true that Mohammed Ali had no dealings with Germany.

Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question—whether he will represent to the Prime Minister the precedents and the conduct of this man, and that he is not a right man to be received?

Mr. FISHER: I think the Prime Minister is perfectly well aware of the career of Mohammed Ali.

LAJPAT RAI.

Colonel YATE: 3.
asked whether permission has been given to Lajpat Rai, who was deported from the Punjab in 1907, as reported in the Rowlatt Report,
to return from America to India; and, if so, was that permission given before the proclamation of the general amnesty on the passing of the Government of India Bill or after?

Mr. FISHER: It was in October last that the Secretary of State for India decided that a passport from America to India might be allowed to Lajpat Rai.

Colonel YATE: Was this permission given before the Amnesty, or after?

Mr. FISHER: I think it was given before, but the Amnesty does not really affect the question. Lajpat Rai was never prosecuted for sedition. A British Indian subject, Lajpat Rai, who has never been convicted in court and never prosecuted—it is true he was deported in 1907—and whose public writings, however objectionable they may seem, were cloaked by the assertion that he wished for constitutional changes in India, but was not asking for separation from the British Empire, desired to return to India. The Government of India decided that the passport should no longer be refused.

INDIA OFFICE (COST).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 5.
asked whether any settlement has been arrived at regarding the cost of the India Office to be borne by British and Indian Revenues, respectively, during the coming financial year, and when the respective amounts will be made public in India and this country?

Mr. FISHER: The recently published Vote on Account for the Civil Services forecasts a contribution from Imperial Revenues towards the cost of the India Office of £78,500. This amount, together with other sums totalling £40,000, which have for some time past been contributed to Indian Revenues on account of certain Imperial services rendered by India, is provisionally estimated to cover the cost, during the coming financial year, of the salaries of the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and of the Administrative as distinguished from the Agency functions of the India Offie.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 6.
asked when it is proposed to set up the Standing Committee
of Members of both Houses of Parliament in connection with Indian affairs, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Act last Session?

Mr. FISHER: I think it is clear from paragraph 6 of their Report that the Joint Select Committee did not contemplate the setting up of a regular Joint Standing Committee until the Act is in operation, and, speaking generally, the Act cannot be brought into operation until the rules to be framed under it are ready. But I hope very shortly to move the House to reappoint forthwith the Joint Select Committee which dealt with the Bill, for the purpose (as they themselves recommended) of considering and advising on the drafting of these rules, and that similar steps will be taken in due course in another place.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that there is to be no change in the personnel of the Joint Select Committee from that which was sot up last Session—no addition either in this House or the other House?

Mr. FISHER: No, Sir; I think there will be some.

Colonel YATE: Is it usual for a Committee, set up for a particular purpose in one Session, to recommend that they should be continued indefinitely, and that that recommendation should be acceded to?

Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend thinks that is the appropriate course to take under the circumstances.

HODEIDAH (GARRISON).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India what Indian troops, if any, are still at Hodeidah; why they are still there: whether they are shortly to be withdrawn; and whether any trade is possible between the town of Hodeidah and the interior of Yemen?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The garrison at Hodeidah, which was temporarily increased at the time of the detention of Colonel Jacob's mission, has now been reduced to one battalion of Indian infantry, which is being retained for the present at the desire of the inhabitants.
I have no reason to believe that there is any impediment to trade between the town of Hodeidah and the interior of the Yemen.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman toll me why he answers this question, and not the India Office? Is Hodeidah in charge of the Foreign Office?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I answer this question because it concerns the Government policy in the Foreign Office zone.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Docs the Foreign Office zone now extend throughout the Red Sea as far as Aden?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must decline to answer any question dealing with boundaries.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether Hodeidah is managed from Cairo or India?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In so far as this question is concerned, it is managed from the Foreign Office.

AFGHANISTAN.

Sir J. D. REES: 8.
asked whether the Afghan Government has despatched an envoy to Teheran for the purpose of negotiating a commercial treaty?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that an Afghan envoy has been despatched to Teheran. I am not aware whether he has yet arrived.

CALCITTTA UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONERS (REPORT).

Sir J. D. REES: 9.
asked whether the Resolution of the Government of India of 27th January, 1920, on the Report of the Calcutta University Commissioners can be made available for the use of hon. Members?

Mr. FISHER: Yes, Sir. I will have copies placed in the library, and I will send a copy to the hon. Member.

WRECK CHART.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is intended to publish a further edition of the wreck chart?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A new edition of the seven wreck charts, published by the Admiralty, which embraces the British Isles and North Sea, is now being revised, and should be ready for issue by about the 23rd of this month The work has been prolonged owing to the necessity of sifting a great deal of information, much of which was unreliable, regarding the position of some 2,000 wrecks. About 400 additional wrecks have been inserted on the new editions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

VESSELS IN COMMISSION.

Mr. WILLIAM CARTER: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of naval ships of each class now in commission in home waters; and what number of each class is not in commission?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): Complete details of ships in commission are contained in my statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates. The numbers of ships of the various classes which have been paid off, are as follow:—

Battleships
…
…
14


Battle Cruisers
…
…
2


Cruisers
…
…
16


Light Cruisers
…
…
33


Monitors
…
…
17


Sloops
…
…
76


Minesweepers
…
…
68


Patrol Boats
…
…
47


Flotilla Loaders
…
…
10


Dcstroyers
…
…
220


Torpedo Boats
…
…
48


Submarines
…
…
55


Patrol Gunboats
…
…
1

There are of course in addition, numbers of obselete types which have served—and some are still serving—for use as hulks for accommodation or training purposes and the like. Harbour service and other auxiliary small-craft are also not included in the figures.

H.M.S. "VINDICTIVE."

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any hope of being able to sell H.M.S. "Vindictive" at a moderate cost; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to her disposal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot to-day say anything definite in reply to this question. Amongst other things the "Vindictive" broke her back during a very severe gale experienced in May last. Operations are in progress in order to move her to a position where she will not obstruct the Channel. Thereafter a decision will be taken as to her ultimate disposal.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from that answer that there is a prospect of saving the ship? Shall I put a question later?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend might put a question later. I should not like to answer that without consulting the Department.

TRAWLERS AND DRIFTERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many trawlers and drifters are employed with His Majesty's Fleet on services other than mine-sweeping; how many are employed on mine-sweeping; how many are awaiting disposal; how many trawlers and drifters have been disposed of since the Armistice with Germany; and how many of these were disposed of to ex-Service men or to Royal Naval Reservists?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is a long and detailed one. I will, if I may, therefore circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT. Presuming that my hon. and gallant Friend needs the information in anticipation of the Debate on Navy Estimates which opens at 7.15 this evening, I am sending him a copy forthwith.

The following is the statement referred to:—

As regards the first part of the question,

57 Admiralty-owned trawlers,
6 Chartered trawlers,
73 Admiralty drifters,
17 Chartered drifters,

are at present employed with His Majesty's Fleet on services other than mine-sweeping.

As regards the second part, 20 Admiralty trawlers are now employed on mine-sweeping. No drifters or chartered vessels are so employed.

As regards the third part, 58 Admiralty trawlers are at present awaiting disposal.

Fifty-seven chartered trawlers are in process of reconditioning for return to owners.

As already stated in my reply of 27th October to the hon. Member for Banff, 200 Admiralty trawlers are allocated to the Trawling Society for ex-Service Fishermen which is in course of formation.

There are also 48 Trawlers lying in Canadian waters which have not yet been sold.

All surplus Admiralty drifters, approximately 150 vessels, are now being transferred to the Fishery Boards to be disposed of on terms of deferred payment to ex-Service and Royal Naval Reserve men.

One hundred and forty-three chartered drifters are in process of reconditioning for return to owners.

There are also 77 drifters in Canadian waters which have not yet been sold.

As regards the fourth part, 182 Admiralty trawlers have been sold and 1,084 chartered trawlers returned to owners since the Armistice.

Forty Admiralty drifters have been sold and 1,180 chartered drifters returned to owners since the Armistice.

As regards the last part of the question, the purchasers of at least 22 trawlers and 6 drifters are known to have served in H.M. Forces. This figure of course does not include the ex-Service men to whom the 150 Admiralty drifters will be sold through the Fishery Boards, nor does it include a number of other cases where groups partially composed of ex-Service men have purchased Admiralty vessels.

EASTERN BALTIC (MINES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any plans have boon drawn up for clearing the Eastern Baltic of mines after the ice clears; and whether it is intended to assist the Soviet Government of Russia in clearing the Gulf of Finland of mines by exchanging information as to the position of the minefields or in any other way?

Mr. LONG: The mine clearance of the Baltic, outside the Gulf of Finland, has been allotted to Germany. With regard to the Gulf of Finland, exchange of information as to the position of mines
laid with the intention of safeguarding His Majesty's ships from attack by Bolshevik ships, will depend on the attitude of the Soviet Government towards the British naval vessels which may be in Baltic waters in the spring. It is not the intention to afford assistance in clearing the Gulf of Finland of mines, other than by such exchange of information.

PRIVATE YARDS (REPAIRS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked how many of His Majesty's ships are undergoing repairs or docking in private yards?

Dr. MACNAMARA: None of His Majesty's ships are at present undergoing repairs or docking in private yards. Three Admiralty trawlers are, however, in hand at a private yard in Brightlingsea fitting out for transfer to the National Fishery Scheme. Three old cruisers ("Leviathan," "Minotaur," and "Duke of Edinburgh") are also having guns, etc., removed at the Humber—where they are lying—preparatory to sale and transfer to purchasers. This work will all be completed before the end of April.

DISCHARGES BY PURCHASE.

Sir EVAN JONES: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether discharges by purchase from the Navy have been suspended; and, if so, for what period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In order to reduce the personnel of the Fleet to the level of post-War requirements, a number of free discharges have been authorised, since the 1st October, 1919, among men over 18 years of age. Discharge by purchase is suspended for men over this age, those who can be spared being allowed free discharge. Orders respecting the reintroduction of discharge by purchase will be promulgated at an early date. The discharge by purchase of boys under 18 has not been suspended.

Sir E. JONES: Will ray right hon. Friend explain whether those who made application for discharge by purchase before the suspension will receive consideration and free discharge?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, their applications will be considered.

Mr. WILKIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why a man who applied before suspension has not been released?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with me in any case of that kind; I confess I do not quite follow what he is asking.

FREIGHT AND INSURANCE OF TREASURE.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much of the total sum of £1,753,150, received by the Admiralty for freight and insurance of treasure carried in His Majesty's ships during the War, was on account of freight and how much was on account of insurance; what rate of freight was charged; having regard to the annulment of the Order in Council of 10th August, 1888, on what authority was any freight charged or rate fixed; whether the receipt of money for insurance was in consequence of the Admiralty undertaking the insurance; and, if so, on what authority did they undertake it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: An arrangement was made with certain owners of bullion for their property to be conveyed on board His Majesty's ships during the War on payment of a percentage charge to cover insurance and freight. The rate paid was usually 25s. per cent. It was generally unnecessary to divide this amount between insurance and freight, but where freight was accounted for separately, it was chargd at 4s. 3d. per cent.

PROMOTION FROM LOWER DECK.

Mr. DOYLE: 19.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men who were promoted from the lower deck to be officers during the War; how many of these have been retained in the Navy, and whether it is proposed to grant additional facilities for deserved promotion to the higher rank?

Dr. MACNAMARA: During the War, 3,101 promotions were made to Warrant rank, and 497 to the rank or equivalent rank of Mate. Of the officers so promoted, 1,758 and 447 respectively are still serving. A few of those promoted to Mate were Warrant Officers previously, but the exact number is not available The number of promotions made during the War was considerably above the normal, and at present, generally speaking, the lists of officers are much overborne. Bearing in mind also the lesser number of officers required for the post-War Fleet, it is likely that the number of promotions, taken as a whole, must be
smaller for some time to come. At the same time the Admiralty are anxious to increase, as far as possible, the facilities for promotion, and in this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the proposals for earlier promotion to Mate which appear in the First Lord's Statement on the Navy Estimates issued to the House.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS CHARGEMEN (PAY).

Mr. WALLACE: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department received a petition from the chargemen of trades in His Majesty's dockyards, Rosyth, Portsmouth, Chatham, etc., relating to increase of pay by annual increments, and the granting of 12 days' annual holiday with pay; and whether a decision has been reached and a reply sent to the petitioners?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before that question is answered may I ask whether the word "Devonport" has not been missed out before Rosyth?

Mr. WALLACE: Before my right hon. Friend takes notice of that question, will he in his answer kindly address himself to my question No. 20. Devonport is an "etcetera."

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) should have thought of his point before. A petition has been received of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend, and a deputation of the petitioners had an' interview with me at the Admiralty. Both the points raised require and are receiving careful consideration. I am afraid I can give no undertaking respecting the ultimate decision.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a decision soon on this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be no delay, but both points are rather important. They constitute an alteration in the status as well as in the pay of the chargemen

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Now would the right hon. Gentleman say why Devon-port is not represented?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have seen the Devonport chargehands 6n both these matters on several occasions.

ROSYTH NAVAL BASE.

Mr. WALLACE: 21.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether several young ex-Service men were engaged at Rosyth naval base at definite weekly wages, plus bonuses, mutually agreed upon, and after working several weeks they were sent for, informed that as they were not 21 years of age they were not entitled to the 12½ per cent. bonus, and were compelled to return th excess; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for this treatment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: A report has been obtained on the subject of my hon. Friend's question. It appears that four ex-Service men were recently engaged. As they were not 21 years of age, the 12½ per cent. bonus was not payable to them, but through inadvertence the bonus was paid for several weeks. On the mistake being discovered, arrangements were made for the recovery of the overpayments by easy instalments. The payment of the 12½ per cent. bonus was not part of the specific terms of employment, but a report has been called for from the Yard, with the object of considering whether the circumstances are such as to make recovery of the over-payment inequitable.

Mr. WALLACE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have the united testimony of these four men that the 12½ per cent. bonus was promised? Even if It had not been promised, now that it has been paid, does he not think it is very paltry on the part of the Admiralty to call for a return of this ss. extra per week? No private firm would pursue such a policy; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the only value of this incident is to show the Labour party in this House what labour can suffer when under State control?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will not go into the broad question, but I may say that the 12½ per cent. bonus, under the Ministry of Munitions Scheme, was not payable to men under 21. If, however, anyone in authority inadvertently promised these men the 12½ per cent., although recovery is being made, it shall be repaid them.

Mr. WALLACE: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received a petition from the male writers at Rosyth asking for increased pay; and whether his Department has yet arrived at a decision on the question?

Dr. MACNAMARA: A petition for increased pay has been received from the temporary writers at H.M. Dockyard, Rosyth, but a separate decision cannot be arrived at as regards Rosyth pending a decision on the application by the Civil Service Union for increased pay generally for temporary writers in all the dockyards and naval establishments. This latter application is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

DIVISIONAL (TRAINING) COMMITTEES.

Commander BELLAIRS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour how many disabled sailors and soldiers are now under training through the efforts of the 17 divisional training committees; how many of these are training for the building trade; whether the directors of these divisional training centres have complete power to act on the evidence placed before them as to the number of men the industry is capable of absorbing, or whether they have to be guided by votes of the members of their committees; and whether he will add to the committees representatives of the sailors and soldiers?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): 19,514 such men are now under training, of whom 1,505 are being trained in the building trade. In deciding as to the capacity of a particular industry to absorb more labour the Divisional Directors of Industrial Training are guided by local technical advisory committees representing the local organisations of employers and workpeople in the trades concerned, who ought to be in the best position to gauge the prospects of employment in their own districts. The addition to these committees of representatives of the ex-Service men is now under the consideration of the various national trade advisory committees who are responsible for determining the constitution of local technical advisory committees.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any record is kept of the sailors and soldiers that have been trained in boot and shoe making who have been placed in situations and of those who have been unable to obtain the same, and whether he will give the figures appertaining thereto; and, if no
such record has been kept, whether he will arrange for this to be done in future?

Sir R. HORNE: As the course of training in boot and shoe making involves the placing of men as improvers with private employers for the latter part of their training, the question of finding situations at the termination of training does not as a rule arise. In certain cases delays and difficulties arise in finding "improver" vacancies on the termination of the period of training in an institution, but these are normally overcome by the action of the local technical advisory committees, who give special attention to the finding of such vacancies for the men. Steps are being taken to obtain records of cases where improvers' vacancies are not available.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask whether their training as improvers with private firms is merely part of the scheme of training and can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men whoso training has been completed have been placed in employment and are at work? Is it not the fact that part of the recommendation of the Committee for the establishment of the scheme was that more men should not be trained than could reasonably be placed in vacancies?

Sir R. HORNE: It was certainly part of the scheme that no more men should be trained than could be placed. That matter is controlled by the Local Technical Advisory Committees which contain representatives both of employers and employed. Up till now we have not had the experience of failing to find men positions at the end of their improvers' course after the technical training.

Mr. FORREST: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have in all applied for industrial training; and how many hitherto are actually being trained?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of ex-service men who are now known to be awaiting industrial training is approximately 27,500. The number of those actually receiving industrial training is 19,514.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Have facilities been given to suitable persons to obtain the necessary factories wherever possible in accordance with the Committee's recommendations?

Sir R. HORNE: We are as rapidly as possible acquiring as many factories as we can use. There has been delay which I much regret, but we are expediting matters as much as possible at the present time.

Mr. FORREST: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state in detail the numbers of ex-service men whose training has been sanctioned by the various unions represented at the Trades Union Congress of 1919, and at the same time indicate how many of these ex-service men have actually commenced their training?

Sir R. HORNE: The bodies responsible for deciding the number of ex-service men who may be admitted to training in the organised trades are not the Unions represented at the Trades Union Congress, but Local Technical Advisory Committees, representing the local organisations of employers and workpeople in most of the chief staple trades of the country. The great majority of the 19,500 men now under training have been "admitted by Local Technical Advisory Committees.

Major LLOYD GREAME: Docs that answer apply to the building trade?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, it applies also to the building trade. There is a Local Technical Advisory Committee which sits on the matter, and there is also a Building Trades Council which has been dealing with part of the question in order to put a large number into training for the trade.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is essential that some further pressure, outside that of employers and employed in the building trade, should be enforced in order to open the ranks of the trade to discharged service men?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I entirely agree with the suggestion made in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. So far as training is concerned we have been met to a very great extent by the building trade, but so far as getting discharged men into the trade goes there has been a very definite refusal, and I hope that public pressure will be brought to bear on this matter.

Major DAVID DAVIES: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can arrange for approved societies to be notified when any of their members undergo a period of training under the Ministry of Labour?

Sir R. HORNE: The necessary instructions have recently been issued to ensure the notification to the approved societies of all insured persons receiving training allowances.

CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WATERSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour what decision has been arrived at relative to the case of Mr. Wright, a discharged soldier, reference number 80,011/L6, who has made application for assistance from the Civil Liabilities Department, Savoy Place; whether he can now give his promised reply; and whether he is aware that the applicant has notice to leave his present home by 11th March next and has nowhere to go unless his application is granted?

Sir R. HORNE: I find upon further inquiry that Mr. Wright has already received a course of training at the public expense. He would not, however, be eligible for assistance in starting business on his own account unless the local War Pensions Committee, under whom he had entered upon training, had undertaken that he should have it, and the Committee were to certify that, owing to special conditions, it is not practical for Mr. Wright to obtain employment in the occupation for which he has been trained. The local War Pensions Committee have now stated that no such undertaking was given.

TRADE BOARDS.

Mr. SITCH: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the trades now under trade boards and the number employed in trades in which it is proposed to create trade boards during the present year; the number of persons at present engaged in the administration of the Trade Boards Acts; and the additions proposed to be made to this number when the further trade boards are created?

Sir R. HORNE: It is impossible to state accurately the number of workpeople employed in trades to which the Trade Boards Acts have been applied, but it is
estimated that the total number is over 2,000,000. It is further estimated that about 2,500,000 are engaged in trades which are now being investigated with a view to the application of the Trade Boards Acts. The number of officers engaged in the administration of the Acts, including the Secretarial and Clerical Staff attached to the Trade Boards, is 159, of whom 115 are temporary officers. For the enforcement of Trade Board rates of wages, it is proposed not to increase the number of the special staff of Inspectors but to utilise the existing noncompliance staff of the Ministry for inspection under the Trade Boards Acts and other Acts for the administration of which the Ministry of Labour is responsible. I anticipate that by this means the proper observance of the Acts will be secured.

Mr. SITCH: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Trade Board for the aerated water trade in Scotland has proposed to fix minimum rates of wages below those proposed by the Trade Board in the same trade in ling-land and Wales, and that this difference of rates is viewed with apprehension by manufacturers of aerated waters in England and Wales; whether there is any justification either in regard to cost of living or cost of production in Scotland for the difference; and whether he will look into the matter and, if the difference should not appear to be justified, take steps to bring about a co-ordination in the two sots of minimum rates in the interests of English and Welsh manufacturers and Scottish operatives in the aerated water trade?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that the two Trade Boards set up for the aerated waters trade have proposed different minimum rates of wages for England and Wales and for Scotland. The proposals are still under the consideration of the respective Boards, and I feel unable to express an opinion until the recommendations of the two Boards are submitted to me in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Statute. The whole matter will then receive my careful consideration.

Mr. SITCH: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases in which he has sanctioned, or proposes to sanction, the creation of separate trade boards for Scotland in respect of trades not distinctively Scottish; the considerations, if
any, that induce him to create these; separate boards, and the advantages he I expects to derive from the policy; whether, if he regards separate boards as advantageous for Scotland, he proposes also to create separate boards for Wales; whether he is aware that the creation 1 of separate boards in a single trade for; different parts of the United Kingdom involves the risk of different rates of wages, and consequently of friction between employers in one part of the United Kingdom and those in another, as well as a serious increase in the expenses of trade boards administration; and whether, in the circumstances, he will undertake not further to create more than one board in any trade in the United Kingdom until he has taken into account the views of the associations of employers and workers in the trade?

Sir R. HORNE: This question involves a very long answer, and I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement referred to:—

Separate Trade Boards for Scotland have been established for the aerated waters trade, for the hat, cap and millinery trade, and for the dressmaking and women's light clothing trade. I also propose to establish separate Scottish Boards for each of the distributive trades, to which the Trade Boards Acts are now being applied. It is impossible at present to state the total number of Boards that will be required for this group of trades. No decision has been reached as to any other trade, and each case will be considered on its merits, after the views of those interested have been obtained. Separate Boards are only established where there is a substantial difference between the conditions prevailing in the two countries. I have received strong representations from both employers' and workers' organisations in certain trades in favour of the establishment of separate Boards for Scotland, and I feel that there are obvious advantages in such a course, which avoids the necessity for the joint discussion of problems of local or domestic interest and obviates unnecessary expense and waste of time. I anticipate that, far from increasing the cost of administration, this is in the interests of economy. I have received no representations in favour of separate Boards for Wales and no question has arisen in this
connection. It is within the discretion of any Trade Board to propose whatever rates it considers suitable for its area, but, of course, where separate Boards exist, there is no reason why they should not co-ordinate their action if they so desire. In reply to the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that I am compelled by Statute to establish a separate Board in Ireland for any trade which is carried on to any substantial extent in that country. As regards Great Britain, it is my practice, in this as in other matters, to give full consideration to the views of all trade organisations concerned.

TIN MINERS (WAGES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Press that on 3rd November last the price of tin (standard cash) was £273 per ton, and that it rose by rapid stages to £423 per ton on 25th February and is still over the £400 limit and stands at a figure higher than tin has over reached in its history; that the position in Cornwall to-day is that the miners are not being paid a fair rate of wages compared with the increase which other branches of workers are receiving; whether the Industrial Council of the tin trade has had before it demands for increased wages for over a month and has come to no settlement; whether the return of tin miners' wages in the February issue of the "Labour Gazette" only reveals average weekly earnings of £2 6s. 6d. per man per week; and whether, in view of this apparent refusal of the tin-mine proprietors of Cornwall to pay their men an adequate wage, he will, in view of the profits now being made, at once set up an Industrial Council inquiry?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed that negotiations are proceeding between the Tin Mining Employers' Federation and the Workers' and Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Unions, that an offer of certain increased wages has been made to the unions, and that a ballot on it is taking place. In the circumstances I do not think my Department should intervene in this matter at the present stage.

BARYTES MINERS (WAGES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether in 1913 there were raised from mines 48,018 tons of barytes of a value of £41,460, or about 17s. perton, and this figure had increased in 1918 to 66,360 tons of a value of £218,592, or about £3 6s. per ton; whether he could state, approximately, what were the wages of barytes miners in 1913 and what they are at the present moment; whether in 1913 24,688 tons of fluor spar were mined valued at £9,436, or 7s. 6d. per ton, and in this production had risen to 53,498 tons in 1918 of a value of £41,310, or about 16.s. per ton, and what were the wages of fluor spar miners in 1913 and what are they at the present moment; and whether he can arrange for the wages of these two sections of miners to be stated each month in the "Labour Gazette" Returns in the same manner as those of other classes of workers are returned?

Sir R. HORNE: I propose to circulate this answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The follwing is the statement referred to:—

According to the Reports of the Chief Inspector of Mines, the total production of barium (compounds) was 50,045 tons, of an average value of 16s. 10d. per ton, in 1913, and 66,360 tons, of an average value of 65s. 11d. in 1918; and that of fluor spar was 53,663 tons, of an average value of 5s. 7d. per ton, in 1913, and 53,498 tons, with an average value of 15s. 5d. per ton, in 1918. Statistics are not available as to the wages of the workpeople engaged in these industries.

The particulars of numbers employed and total wages, published each month in the "Labour Gazette," relate only to certain of the principal industries. In come cases barytes and fluor spar are produced at lead and zinc mines, for which statistics are already published, and I do not think that the numbers employed at mines producing only barytes or fluor spar are sufficiently great to provide a sound basis for useful statistics.

LEAD AND ZINC MINERS (WAGES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any Indus trial Council exists in the lead and zincmining industry; if not, whether he will
avail himself of Part II. of the Industrial Courts Act to institute an inquiry into the recent rises of lead from £37 per ton in November to over £50 per ton (English pig) to-day, and the relation this advanced price bears to the wages of lead miners; and whether, as spelter has advanced in a similar period from about £46 per ton to an average of about £60 per ton, he will extend the inquiry into the remuneration of blend miners, and, if possible, form an Industrial Council for these two industries?

Sir R. HORNE: No Joint Industrial Council exists for either of the industries, though there is an Interim Industrial Reconstruction Committee for the Non-ferrous Mines Industry, which is primarily connected with lead and zinc mining.
As I have previously ventured to point out to the hon. Member, an inquiry into the economic position of non-ferrous mining in this country is already being conducted, and a concurrent inquiry on this subject is accordingly unnecessary and inadvisable.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL.

Captain BAGLEY: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour when the Hours of Employment Bill will be introduced?

Sir R. HORNE: I hope to be able to announce very shortly a date for the introduction of this Bill.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL (IRELAND).

Mr. DEVLIN: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state if the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Bill will be extended to the workers of Ireland?

Sir R. HORNE: The point of the hon. Gentleman's question has been raised by an Amendment to the Bill and will be dealt with shortly in Committee. The details connected with the matter are at present under the consideration of the Government Departments concerned, and the considered view of the Government will be given when the Committee deals with the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

TRAINING SCHEMES (EXCLUSION).

Mr. DONALD: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour why young men of the mercantile marine who were on service during the War have been refused financial assistance while studying for their Board of Trade certificate, seeing that these men's period of service was interrupted during the War?

MR. W. GRAHAM: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether men who served in the mercantile marine during the War are excluded from the training schemes of his Department; and whether, having regard to the danger to which these men were almost always exposed and that their War service was as real as that of many men with the ordinary forces who are eligible for training and grants, the Government is now prepared to alter the Regulations applying to demobilised men of the mercantile marine?

Sir R. HORNE: As I explained to the hon. and gallant Member for South Nottingham in an answer given on the third day of this month, the limits of the maintenance and training grants' scheme administered by my Department were fixed after a full review of all the relevant factors, and it was decided that it was impossible to include members of the Mercantile Marine as a, class in that scheme; although the matter has been reconsidered by me on more than one, occasion, I fear I cannot see my way to recommend a reversal of this decision. I may add that members of the Mercantile Marine who enter into certain agreements with the Admiralty and were disabled during their service under such agreements, are already eligible for training under the scheme.

Mr. GRAHAM: In view of the fact that the bulk of these men suffered very considerably, and further, that their numbers are very small, would it not be possible to include them in this scheme without much additional cost to the State?

Sir R. HORNE: Everyone knows that the utmost possible sympathy is felt by all for members of the Mercantile Marine. But this is a question which is entirely separate from the main question of apprenticeships in other trades. While we have applied the apprenticeship
scheme to those whose apprenticeships were interrupted during the War, the same kind of considerations do not apply to the Mercantile Marine, and what we are really being asked to do is to provide for people during the time they are preparing for their examination. That does not fall within the general limits of the scheme, and I am afraid I cannot promise any reversal of any decision already arrived at.

Mr. GRAHAM: Does that apply strictly to men of the mercantile marine who are really in the position of disabled men, and why should any distinction be drawn?

Sir R. HORNE: There is no distinction in that respect. So far as they are disabled men there will be adequate opportunities of training, just the same as the others.

LABOUR EXCHANGES.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in some eases Scottish bakers who have been in receipt of unemployment donation in Scotland have been offered by the Employment Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour situations in England and Wales at rates lower than the rates for these areas prescribed in Statutory Rules and Orders, 1919, No. 1772, dated 19th November, 1919; whether the officials of these Exchanges are acting in accordance with the Ministry of Labour's policy and Regulations in offering situations the terms of which are at variance with findings which have been reached through the agency of the Ministry's officials; and whether he will take steps to prevent such offers being made in future?

Sir R. HORNE: The instructions to Employment Exchanges provide that vacancies offering lower wages than the legal minimum shall not be offered to workpeople, whether or not such workpeople are in receipt of donation or unemployment benefit. I am making inquiry as to whether there has been any contravention of these instructions in the class of cases referred to by the hon. Member, but it would assist these inquiries if he would furnish me with further particulars.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any of the new Employment Exchanges, for which Estimates have been submitted, are designed to deal with applicants between fourteen and eighteen years of age; and, if so, on what ground the Ministry of Labour is justified in encroaching on the powers given to local education authorities by the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910?

Sir R. HORNE: The Estimates submitted for new Employment Exchanges provide, where necessary, for dealing with applicants between fourteen and eighteen years of age. This does not involve any encroachment on the powers vested in local education authorities under the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910. In the majority of cases the local education authorities have concurred in special schemes, either under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, or the Education (Choice of Employment) Act, 1910, which provide for all the work of dealing with juvenile applicants being performed at the Local Employment Exchange. In certain cases in which a scheme under the Education (Choice of Employment) Act has been approved, the scheme provides for the work being done in premises belonging to the local education authority, and in such cases provision for the accommodation of juveniles is not made and is not proposed at the Local Employment Exchanges. It should be added that, as regards persons between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, who are compulsorily insured against unemployment, the Ministry are under a statutory obligation to provide the necessary accommodation for this purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that in all cases local Education Boards will be consulted and asked to co-operate in this scheme?

Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry to say cooperation between these two bodies is not complete throughout the country. It works very well at headquarters, and I am at present considering with the Minister of Education means whereby we can get bettor co-operation in the country.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on there being no unnecessary duplication of buildings or staff at the public expense?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a point which we are keeping very much in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

POLAND.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the supply of arms and munitions to Poland by the United States of America received the approval of the Supreme Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The action which the United States Government have seen fit to take in this matter cannot suitably form the subject of a question and answer in this House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When may we have a statement in view of the recent pronouncement on the need of demobilisation and peace in the world?

Mr. BONARLAW: I do not think this is a proper place for a statement on that subject.

RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been arrived at by the Supreme Council as to the constitution of the Commission to visit Russia; and on what date it is proposed to despatch that Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Member is incorrectly informed. A Commission to visit Russia is being organised not by the Supreme Council, but by the Council of the League of Nations.

HUNGARY.

Mr. RAFFAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Ruthenians formerly under Hungarian rule have expressed a desire for incorporation into Czechoslovakia; if so, by what method; and, if not, whether they will be allowed to choose their allegiance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Peace Conference, after prolonged study of the question of the Ruthenians of Hungary, came to the conclusion that this people preferred to be attached to Czechoslovakia rather than to Hungary or Roumania, They have, however, not been incorporated in Czecho-Slovakia, but
formed into a completely autonomous province, the rights of which are protected by a special treaty with the Czecho-Slovak Government. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. RAFFAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in fixing the boundaries of Hungary, the principle of self-determination is to be applied; whether the boundaries proposed will exclude from their own fatherland and place under Roumanian or Czecho-Slovak rule large compact populations of Magyars and other races, including some blocks numbering hundreds of thousands; and whether the wishes of these people will be ascertained by plebiscite or by any other method before such boundaries are finally determined?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, the Peace Conference have drawn the boundaries of Hungary as closely in accordance with ethnic principles as was geographically possible. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that owing to the mixed character of the population in these regions it was inevitable that large Magyar minorities should be as a result brought under Roumanian rule, just as many hundreds of thousands of Czechoslovaks, Roumanians and (Germans have still to be left under Hungarian rule. I cannot regard the proposal of a plebiscite in the third part of the question as practicable, but the Peace Conference have never lost sight of the wishes of the inhabitants.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the Treaty be laid before the House for discussion?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Italian Prime Minister has been urging the Supreme Council to revise this Treaty more in the direction of national integrity?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact, the whole subject was very carefully considered.

Mr. RAFFAN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether Roumania has under taken by treaty to give to Hungarian nationals coming under Roumanian rule the right to opt for any other nationality that may be open to them and that persons
exercising such option shall be entitled to retain their immovable property in Roumanian territory; if he is aware that, in defiance of such treaty, a law has been decreed to expropriate entirely all real estate belonging to foreign subjects and enacting that Hungarian subjects who choose allegiance to any State other than Roumanian are to be treated as foreigners and thus deprived of the protection specifically provided for them in the treaty, and that this is to apply to corporate property held on behalf of co-operative societies, churches, and schools, thus violating the religious liberty promised by the Allies; whether he has protested or will protest against this action; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the oppression of transferred populations and to guarantee the execution by the Roumanian Government of their treaty obligations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; Roumania, Czecho - Slovakia, Yugo - Slavia and Austria, though not yet Hungary, have signed such treaties. With regard to the second part of the question, I am aware that a law has been introduced in Roumania and in Transylvania to expropriate big estates, though I am not in a position to state whether the details of this law are of the character alleged. The third part of the question does, therefore, not arise. With regard to the last part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that the guarantee of these treaties rests with the League of Nations.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make enquiry with regard to the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. The Supreme Council will make sure that the legislation does not infringe the Treaty. So far as I am able to gather information, what happened is that those Governments are going a very long way in the direction of the land policy of the hon. Member.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there have been great complaints that religious liberty has been interfered with and is he not aware that those who are keen on the land policy are keen on religious liberty and all other forms of liberty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is nothing about religious liberty in the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that land policy applied to the Boyars of Roumania as well as to the landlords of Transylvania?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I told the House we have not full information as to what the legislation is but so far as information is available it applies to all estates.

EAST PRUSSIA AND BALTIC PROVINCES.

Sir P. GOFF: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government had any information last autumn with regard to a contemplated rising of the German troops stationed in East Prussia and the Baltic provinces?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government had information of the existence last summer of a plot to bring about a reactionary and military coup d'etat in East and West Prussia The existence of the plot was discovered by the German Government, who dismissed the ringleaders from the Government service.

Sir P. GOFF: Have the Government no information as regards the number of Prussian troop stationed at Dantzie and Memel?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think we had information, I have not it in my head.

ESTHONIA (BRITISH OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an apology has now been made to Mr. W. T. Goode for the action taken against him by the British officers in Esthonia during his passage through that country last September; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An apology was sent to Mr. Goode on the 8th instant, and no statement therefore is required.

ARMENIANS IN CILICIA.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the French Government has been called to the special danger threatening the Armenians in the town of Hadjin within the French zone in
Cilicia; and whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken for their protection?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has not been necessary to call the attention of the French Government to the conditions in the French zone for the reason that they are themselves in a bettor position than His Majesty's Government to judge of those conditions and the measures necessary to meet them. I have no information as to the steps which they may have taken.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Are there no means which can be taken to give protection, which the French, as a matter of fact, have not given?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think the French are doing their best to protect these unfortunate Armenians in their zone.

CEYLON (RUPEE CURRENCY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics whether the rupee current in Ceylon continues to be minted in India, and if so, has it the same fineness of silver; whether it is under contemplation to reduce the fineness of silver of the Ceylon rupee and have it minted elsewhere than in India; and if any such action is contemplated, will he assure the House that, in view of the fact that Ceylon obtains most of its food and labour from India, no action in any manner divorcing the Ceylonese currency from the Indian currency will be definitely decided upon until Parliament has had the opportunity to express its opinion?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The rupee circulating in Ceylon is the rupee of India, and there is no separate rupee of Ceylon. No action of the nature suggested is under contemplation as regards Ceylon, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

EAST AFRICA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he has yet received a copy of the Ainsworth
Circular respecting forced labour in East Africa; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay it upon the Table?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am still awaiting the receipt of copies of the Circular from the Acting Governor and of his observations on it, and will then consider the question of laying a copy of the Circular on the Table. I must not be taken as accepting the hon. and gallant Member's description of the Circular.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive this Circular, and will he let me have a copy?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I wrote for it a considerable time ago, and I expect it shortly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: indicated assent.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that it is published and not merely given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was going to consider the whole question as to whether it could be circulated amongst hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENT (MRS. SAMUELS).

Captain CHARLES CRAIG: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 2nd of December, 1918, Mrs. Samuels, Voluntary Aid Detachment, Military St. John's Ambulance, was returning to England from Marseilles, where she had been sent on duty; that she registered her luggage according to the regulations; that on arrival at Boulogne two packages, the contents of which were valued at £40, were not forthcoming; that she put in a claim for compensation, first on A. F. O. 1784, to the general officer commanding Eastern Command, and later, in accordance with G. N. O. 3943; that after much correspondence she was informed by the War Office that the general officer commanding in France and Flanders had been requested to forward the registration
certificate for the lost luggage, but owing to the lapse of time and rapid demobilisation of the Army the certificate was not forthcoming, and under the circumstances it was regretted that the Department was unable to take any further action in the matter; and if he will say whether, in view of the fact that Mrs. Samuels was travelling on duty, that the luggage was lost through the fault of the military authority, and that she followed the instructions to the letter in making her claim, they will compensate her for the loss she has sustained?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Archibald Williamson): I will look into this case personally and communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

BRIGADE AND DIVISIONAL COMMANDS.

Earl WINTERTON: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large number of eligible Regular officers who served overseas on a war front, he will consider the appointments that have been made to Territorial brigade and divisional commands of Regular officers who did not serve overseas in the late War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No Regular officer who has not served overseas on a war front has been appointed to command a Territorial Force division or brigade.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that an officer who has been appointed in Sussex to command a division had no service overseas, but has had all his service in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the Noble Lord will give me the name of the officer I will certainly say whether his facts are correct. I asked specifically and I was informed that it was not so. The officer about whom this was alleged has seen very hard service in the early days of the War.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him the name privately?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

OLD AGE PENSIONS OFFICERS, WALES.

Major BREESE: 72.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that grave dissatisfaction arises from the appointment of persons to act as old age pensions officers in essentially Welsh-speaking districts in Wales whereby claimants are seriously prejudiced by not understanding the language of inquiry into their means; whether in the Llanwrog sub-district of Carnarvonshire an English-speaking official of Irish nationality without the slightest knowledge of the Welsh-language is being employed; and if he will take steps to substitute a Welsh-speaking official as pensions officer in this district?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, but if the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with the names and addresses of any claimants who are believed to have been prejudiced in the manner suggested, I shall be happy to have inquiries made and to communicate the result. As regards the remainder of the question, I am informed that the pension officer in charge of Carnarvon station, in which the parish of Llandwrog is situated, is Mr. John David Evans, who is a Welshman and thoroughly conversant with the Welsh language.

Major BREESE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the pensions officer is an Irishman?

Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ANTHRACITE COAL.

Sir FORTESGUE FLANNERY: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the public recommendation by the Coal Controller in favour of the use of anthracite coal and his recommendation that special stoves should be provided for consumers for domestic use; whether he is aware that consumers in Essex have been unable to obtain any supplies of this coal since November last although orders have been accepted by the collieries concerned; and whether he can expedite
transport so as to facilitate these deliveries and remove the hardships which have resulted from the delays?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am aware of the recommendations to and the difficulties of the consumers mentioned by the hon. Baronet. No specific cases have been brought to my notice, but I shall be glad to look into any of which the hon. Baronet submits particulars to me. I would, however, point out that owing to diversion from sea-borne routes, the railway companies are being called upon to carry this traffic inland from South Wales in much greater volume than before the War. This not only requires the use of additional wagons when there is a general shortage, but causes additional difficulty to the railways in that the latter, generally speaking, are not laid out to deal with the volume of traffic in the direction in which it is now flowing. This is the ease throughout the Kingdom, and does not apply to anthracite coal only. The figures for anthracite traffic originating on the Great Western Railway for six months in 1914 and 1919 show that in the latter year there was an increase of 234,000 tons, or 31 per cent. in the traffic sent by rail inland, and a decrease of 528,900 tons, or 45 per cent., in the traffic shipped.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Am I to understand that 40 per cent. of the traffic which has been transferred from sea-borne traffic to rail-borne traffic applies not only to anthracite coal but to other coal and other goods, and will the hon. Gentleman say, in addition, what steps the Ministry of Transport are taking in order to re-transfer to sea-borne traffic that large proportion which is now overburdening the railways?

Mr. NEAL: The latest information which the Ministry has shows that 40 per cent. does represent at present the amount of traffic which was formerly sea-borne and which was transferred to the railways. With a view to adjusting that state of affairs the coastwise Subsidy has been maintained up to the present, and the continuance of that is being considered.

HORSE SHOWS.

Major DAVID DAVIES: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the
alterations to the conditions under which horses are transported to and from shows by rail will seriously affect country shows, and whether, in view of the importance of encouraging horse breeding, he will restore the pre-War practice of permitting an attendant to travel in the horse box free, and of providing free transport for fodder and the attendant's luggage?

Mr. NEAL: The importance of encouraging horse breeding is appreciated, and the question of restoring the pre-War facilities has been under consideration, but owing to the existing position of the railways it is not practicable to restore them at present. The question is one which will receive sympathetic consideration from time to time.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS (ROTHESAY-GREENOCK).

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give effect to the strongly-expressed desire of the provost and citizens of Rothesay for facilities to workmen to get from Rothesay to Greenock in time for work; whether he is aware that there are 75 men drawing out-of-work benefit who could get and would be glad to get employment at Greenock; that there are besides from 150 to 200 men whose homes are in Rothesay but who are compelled to lodge in Greenock for lack of these facilities; that there is a steamer lying idle from 6.30 p.m. to 7.45 a.m. which could easily do the journey from Rothesay to Wemyss Bay, connecting with a workman's train to Greenock; and that only a slight alteration in the evening train service would be necessary in order to give the facilities desired?

Mr. NEAL: This matter has already received very careful consideration in consultation with the Caledonian Railway Company, but I find that the suggested service could only be given by additional overtime on the part of the crews of the steamboats, and that the revenue which would be derived would not in any way be commensurate with the outlay involved. In these circumstances, I regret that it is not considered expedient at the present time to give the service suggested.

Mr. BROWN: Does the hon. Member not think that the saving of the out-of-work benefit paid to these 75 men would compensate the Ministry for any outlay in the direction suggested?

Mr. NEAL: Those are facts which necessarily have been taken into account, but it is by no means sure that all these men would use the service if it was found practicable to restore it.

Mr. BROWN: Is the hardship which these men suffer not taken into consideration?

Mr. NEAL: Certainly. Any case of hardship is considered, but unfortunately this Ministry, like others, has to balance matters between convenience and inconvenience, and endeavour to arrive at a just result.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (POLICE).

Mr. GILBERT: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the standing committee of railway general managers have been asked to confer with the accredited representatives of the railway police with respect to their conditions of service; and, if so, whether any action has been taken by the Great Northern Railway authorities to carry out these instructions by arranging for the police in their employ to nominate representatives from their number?

Mr. NEAL: I am enquiring into the matters to which my hon. Friend calls attention, and will communicate with him later.

PROFITEERING ACT (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. BROMFIELD: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in how many cases chairmen, directors, or officers of companies have been fined or imprisoned under Section 1 (5) of the Profiteering Act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The reports received from local committees do not give particulars of any directors or other officers of companies having been fined or imprisoned under Section 1 (5) of the Profiteering Act.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is it not a fact that the Profiteering Act is now a dead letter?

DYESTUFFS (SHORTAGE)

Lieut.-Colonel PICKERING: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the shortage of dye wares is becoming serious In the textile trade;
and whether, as the French are in occupation of territory containing German dyeworks, they are getting more than their fair share of dyestuffs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The situation m respect of dyestuffs is receiving the constant attention of the Board of Trade. As regards the second part of the question, the allocation of the stocks of dyestuffs in Germany, so tar as the Allies have a claim on them by way of reparation, is a matter for the Reparation Commission, which, I understand, has made every effort to establish a basis of allocation which is fair to all the Allied countries concerned.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is there any prohibition or obstacle against the importation of German dyes into this country at the present time?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I had better have notice of that question.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is intended to introduce the Anti-Dumping Bill, and whether it will include provision to prohibit the importation of dyes?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MEDICAL BOARDS (REMUNERATION).

Major D. DAVIES: 80.
asked the Pensions Minister if medical men employed on medical boards have had their pay raised by 50 per cent., while medical men employed as assessors on sessional rates have had their pay raised by only 25 per cent.; if so, whether he will state for what reason this distinction is made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the conditions of work of the medical board and the assessor are not the same, the members of the board being drawn from a panel while the assessors are continuously employed. It is not inequitable that the difference between occasional employment, which cannot be counted upon from day to day and regular employment should be marked by a difference in the rate of payment.

TUBERCULOSIS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 81.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been directed to the fact that many discharged men suffering from tuberculosis in all parts of the country are being sent to ordinary medical boards for the reassessment of their pensions; whether these pensions are, in many cases, being reduced; and whether he will take steps to ensure that an expert in tuberculosis shall always be a member of a medical board when it deals with the cases of men suffering from tuberculosis?

Sir J. CRAIG: Whenever a specialist's opinion is required arrangements are made to secure either that the Tuberculosis Officer of the district sits on the board or that the man is referred to him for examination and report.

CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMISSION.

Mr. MYERS: 82.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Rhodes, of 25, Pembroke Street, West Bowling, Bradford, who, on receipt of his first calling-up notice in July, 1916, went before the Bradford local tribunal and claimed exemption on account of the fact that he was blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and suffered from varicose veins and hammer toes (these disabilities being certified by two doctors), and, on the claim being rejected, appealed to the central appeal tribunal without success, and afterwards joined the Army on 22nd January, 1917, and was discharged physically unfit on 29th January, 1917; if he is aware that as a result of the decision of the appeal tribunal Mr. Rhodes, who had previously conducted a school for shorthand, typewriting, and bookkeeping, sold his business, which had cost him £360, for £160 under an agreement dated 6th December, 1916, which agreement stipulated that he could not open another school for three years; that on the expiration of the term of three years Mr. Rhodes applied to the Civil Liabilities Committee for assistance to enable him to purchase typewriting machines and apparatus to open another school, and that after examination of his books the Civil Liabilities Committee notified him that a grant of £50 would be made to him; if he is further aware that, after waiting until July, 1917, Mr. Rhodes wrote
for the money, and thereafter wrote 13 letters altogether before receiving a reply, when he was informed that a mistake had been made and that no grant would be paid to him on the ground that his business was not sold until after he had been demobilised (although, in fact, he sold his business on 6th December, 1916, as the agreement proves, and he was not demobilised until 29th January following); and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made into this case with the object of obtaining further consideration for Mr. Rhodes?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The facts mentioned in the question are not entirely in accordance with the evidence before the Civil Liabilities Department. I am causing further inquiries to be made as to this, and will communicate further with the hon. Member on the subject.

BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. REMER: 83.
asked what was the date of the first arrangement or agreement made by the Ministry whereby the British Government were to make advances to the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The date of the first agreement was 23rd of August, 1917.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. HAYDAY: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have made an order that, in the city of Carlisle and adjoining parishes, no person shall without the sanction of the Board sell or supply any intoxicating liquor in any premises in pursuance of justices' licence granted in respect of any premises, unless at the date of the order such licence was already in existence in respect of such premises, and shall not sell intoxicating liquor in any club unless such club was at the date of the order registered for the sale of intoxicating liquors; if so, can he state when the Board met to make this order, the person who presided, and the members of the Board present; whether he is aware
that the order is giving rise to opposition; and whether he will have the matter reconsidered?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No complaints regarding the order have been received by me or by the Board; but if they are, they will be carefully considered. The order was issued on the 12th February last by the authority of the Board, and I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the members of the Board.

CABLE SERVICE (INDIA).

Sir J. D. REES: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the heavy losses incurred in business owing to delays in delivery of cables to and from India; and whether any, and, if so, what, steps are being taken to avoid in future such delays?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. lllingworth): I am aware of the delay sustained by telegrams to and from India. It has been due to a series of interruptions on the cables of the Eastern Telegraph Company and to the fact that the traffic has enormously increased, being now about three times as great as before the War. The routes to India and the Far East viá Germany and Russia, which carried a considerable amount of traffic before the War, are still out of use, with the result that the whole traffic has to be carried by the Eastern Company's cables.
The Company have just laid new cables between this country and Gibraltar and between Malta and Alexandria, and hope to lay another between Aden and Bombay during the spring. They also hope to increase the capacity of the existing cables by the introduction of new apparatus.
In order to provide a more expeditious service for the most pressing telegrams during the period of stress on the cables, the Company are introducing from to-day an urgent service of telegrams at triple rates to India nad other countries on their system.

Colonel YATE: Is it impossible now to use the old line through Tiflis and Batum?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer that question. So far as the Eastern Telegraph Company are concerned, they are doing everything they possibly can, without any regard to the question of expense

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CALVES (CONTROL).

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 87.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the large number of calves now being sold for slaughter; and whether, in view of the serious effect this is likely to have on milk and meat production in the future, he proposes to take any steps to again assume control of calves?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Epping on the 1st inst.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Board taking any steps to prevent the slaughter of calves which threatens to have very serious consequences later on?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are watching the situation. Several orders have been issued already but have been quite ineffective. I hope that this matter will be cleared and that a better state of affairs will prevail after 4th July when meat is decontrolled.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: What is the cause of the excessive slaughter of calves at present?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Probably the price of veal: also the fact that dairy farmers wish to have milk to sell.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if measures are to be taken they should be put into operation immediately, and that two or three months hence will be much too late?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are watching the situation carefully., We have had many complaints in recent years, and yet the total number of cattle in the country has not diminished.

AIR SERVICE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Captain FALCON: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry whether the Advisory Committee referred to on page 9 of Command Paper 418 has yet made recommendations with regard to the steps
necessary to maintain British supremacy in the air; and whether the Report of the Committee will be published forthwith?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Tryon): My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Civil Aviation as to Imperial Air Routes published in Command Paper 449. The Committee is at present engaged in considering the issues raised on page 9 of Command Paper 418.

FLAX CONTROL.

Mr. DONNELLY: 93.
asked the names of the members of the Flax Control Board and the particular branch of the trade supposed to be represented by each member?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the answer is somewhat lengthy, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:—

The list is as follows:

The Flax Control Board consists of:
Lord Colwyn (Chairman).
Mr. P. Minter (Admiralty).
Sir A. Goldfinch, K.B.E., Mr. J. A. Cooper, C.B.E., Mr. A. M. B. Stevens, Mr. J. Beattie, Mr. W. H. Gardner, Brig.-General Alexander, Lieut.-Colonel Reiss (Ministry of Munitions).
Mr. A. S. Gayo (Flax Production Branch, Ministry of Agriculture).
Mr. J. A. Milne (Formerly War Trade Department).
Professor J. R. Cambell (Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland).
Mr. Frank Barbour (Irish Agriculture).
Mr. R. Garrett Campbell, C.B.E., Mr. R. J. M'Keown (Irish Flax Spinning and Weaving Industry).
Mr. W. Norman Boase, C.B.E. (Scotch Flax Spinning and Weaving Industry).
Mr. H. Wilson (Hemp Industry of the United Kingdom).
Mr. Dawson Gordon (Ireland), Mr. J. F. Sime (Scotland) (Labour).

Mr. DONNELLY: 94.
asked whether the Government has yet decided to immediately
decontrol Irish flax, in view of the unanimous demand from Ireland for decontrol of this crop?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to a number of questions on the subject on the 12th February, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL. LOANS.

Mr. SPOOR: 54.
asked what is the estimated amount required to be raised by loans from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for housing schemes of local authorities with a rateable value of less than £200,000 for the year 1920–21?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The amount depends on the rate of building, and also on the extent to which the smaller local authorities are able to raise money without recourse to the Local Loans Fund. I prefer, therefore, not to give any estimate at the present time, but the sum will undoubtedly be a large one.
I would like to take this opportunity of saying that these small authorities should use every endeavour to raise all the money they can, apart from the Local Loan Fund, in order that the Local Loan Fund may be made to go as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVOLUTION IN GERMANY.

OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

Mr. ASQUITH: (by Private Notice)
asked the Leader of the House if he can give any information on two points: first, the situation in Germany; and second, the events which are alleged to have taken place in Constantinople?

Mr. BONARLAW: In consequence of the atrocities which have occurred in Anatolia and of the hostile attitude persisted in by the Turkish forces and authorities. His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with their Allies, have been forced to order the Allied authorities in Constantinople to proceed to the occupation of the city.
The general administration of Constantinople will not be taken over, but the Ministries of War and Marine will be occupied, the postal and telegraphic services and navigation on the Bosphorus will be placed under control, and the police will be put under Allied officers.
At the same time, the Turkish Government has been warned that the occupation will continue until the terms of peace are duly executed, and further, that if outrages against the native Christians continue, the terms of peace will be made more severe. Later information shows that the occupation of Constantinople has been effected as proposed, and that only at one point was there any fighting. Two British soldiers have been killed and an officer and three soldiers wounded. One Turkish officer and eight Turks were killed and some others wounded.
As regards Germany, Lord Kilmarnock has only been able to telegraph to us the reports which have reached him and which are to the same effect as those which appeared in the Press this morning, namely, that the Bauer-Noske has declined negotiations with the Revolutionary Government at Berlin; that the old Cabinet met yesterday in Stuttgart, and that the National Assembly is meeting this afternoon in Stuttgart. His Majesty's Government have despatched Mr. M. Arnold Robertson, C.M.G., His Majesty's Deputy-Commissioner on the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission, to Stuttgart to keep in touch with the Bauer-Noske Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. T. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement regarding the arrangements for this week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The only change which we propose is to suspend the eleven o'clock rule to-morrow, in the hope that, without a late sitting, some little progress may be made with the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Hodge to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1881) Amendment Bill) and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Blind (Education, Employment, and Maintenance) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the London County Council' (General Powers) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.
2. "That, in the case of the Norwich Corporation Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128, in the ease of the Petition of 'Fred V. Rudd and others,' the Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

First Resolution agreed to.

Report to lie upon the Table.

RUGBY GAS BILL [Lords.]

Message from The Lords.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Rugby Gas Company; and for other purposes."

Bill read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir CHARLES HANSON reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday the 23rd March, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [10TH MAHCH].

Order read for consideration of Seventeenth and subsequent Resolutions.

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–1920.

Class III.

17. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

18. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,406, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."

19. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."

20. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales and the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."

21. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £48,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."

22. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."

23. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,990, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."

24. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of Reformatory and industrial Schools in Ireland."

25. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

Class IV.

26. "That a Supplementary sum, not ex-ceeling £39,793, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

27. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for sundry Grants-in-Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."

28. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £371,194, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."

29. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland."

Class VI.

30. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £210,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."

31. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,146, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."

32. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1920, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Australia, New Zealand, etc."

33. "That a sum, not exceeding £530,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenses of certain Emergency Services arising out of the Railway Strike."

Class VII.

34. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will tome in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for certain Special Charges arising out of the War, including additional allowances to Old Age Pensioners."

35. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £88,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee (including Sundry Grants-in-Aid)."

36. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Expenses in respect of advances under The Housing Act, 1914, sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918, certain Grants-in-Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

Unclassified Services.

37." That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,085,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for

£
£


Vote 3.
Medical Establishments and Services
20,000



Vote 5.
Educational Services
16,000



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:




Section I. Personnel
355,000



Section III. Contract Work
5,366,000



Vote 11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
2,383,000



Vote 12.
Admiralty Office
106,000



Vote 14.
Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances
228,000



Vote 15.
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities
81,000






8,555,000

the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement of the Ministry of Labour, including Out-of-Work Donation and the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and Repayments to associations pursuant to Sections 35 and 106 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, and The National Insurance (Part II.) (Munitions Workers) Act, 1916, and Grants for the training of Demobilised Officers."

38. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,802,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet the Deficiency arising under The Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and the cost of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Chairman of the Coal Industry Commission, dated 20th March, 1919, and for kindred purposes."

39. "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to provide for Advances to British Exporters."

40. "That a sum, not exceeding £680,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for such of the Charges for War Bonus, etc., as have not been otherwise provided."

Revenue Departments.

41. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,115,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Departments and certain special Charges arising out of the War."

42. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1919–20.

43. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, namely:—

Less Surpluses on: —
£
£


Vote 1.
Wages, &c., of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men
812,000



Vote 2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
462,000



Vote 6.
Scientific Services
104,000



Vote 8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—




Section II. Materiel
6,269,000



Vote 9.
Naval Armaments and Aviation
798,000



Vote 10.
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
109,990






8,554,990



Net Amount

£ 10"

Seventeenth Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOGGE: This Estimate raises an old controversy with regard to the method of payment of the Law Officers of the Crown. It has been debated at great length on previous occasions, and I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time except to put one or two questions with regard to the change which is now proposed. One need hardly say to my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite, who occupy those positions of distinction in the Government, that there is nothing personal in the point which has been raised. Everyone recognises the enormous services, and one might say the extra services, which the present Law Officers are called upon to perform, not only at home, but in Paris. We are grateful for the assiduous way and the distinguished way in which they have performed those services. The real point is the question of the method of payment of the Law Officers. The House will remember that during the War certain economies were effected and were concurred in by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, under which the salaries which were paid to them were reduced to the sum of £6,000 in the case of the Attorney-General and to £5,000 in the case of the Solicitor-General, if I remember rightly. In June of the current year, as a result of the signatures attached to the Peace Treaty, apparently the Government had reverted to the increased salary that obtained before the War, that is, £7,000 in the case of the Attorney-General and £6,000 in the case of the Solicitor-General. I think Members of the House are probably familiar with the Debates on this point, and therefore I need waste very little time in giving as
succinct a summary as I can of what has been the practice with regard to the Law Officers.
As far back as 1892 the Law Officers agreed to forego private work and their remuneration at that time was fixed on the basis of salaries, plus fees. That was abandoned in 1895, when a fixed salary for the Attorney-General of £10,000 and of £9,000 for the Solicitor-General was agreed upon. That continued up to 1897. From 1897 onwards we had progressive amounts paid to both Law Officers. In 1897 the figures were: £13,000 for the Attorney-General and £9,300 for the Solicitor-General; in 1898 £14,500 for the Attorney-General and £10,946 for the Solicitor-General; in 1899 £17,264 for the Attorney-General and £11,844 for the Solicitor-General. In 1900 the joint sum went up to £30,153 for the two Law Officers, and so on; I could give the whole list, though it would weary the House to hear the figures. As far as I can discover, the maximum was reached in 1914, when the Attorney-General drew £18,397 6s. 6d. and the Solicitor-General £19,037 16s. 6d.; in other words, both Law Officers for that year drew a total of £37,425. The House will see that that is equal to the salaries of seven Prime Ministers. The point that I think the House ought to address its attention to, when we are discussing again a change in the fixed remuneration of the Law Officers, is whether or not it is going to pay the State to fix the salaries at a definite sum, such as was fixed by the Rosebery Government when the Attorney-General got £10,000 and the Solicitor-General £9,000. The only argument ever adduced with regard to the point that the Law Officers ought to receive more than those fixed salaries in the way of fees, is the question whether, you could get sufficiently distinguished lawyers to make the sacrifice which is necessary to become Law Officers. It has
been repeatedly stated in this House, and it was stated in the last Debate by the present Lord Chancellor, that there would be difficulty in securing men of very distinguished status in the legal profession to take those posts unless they were entitled to the fees which in 1914 ran up with their salaries to a combined sum of £37,425 for the two Law Officers.
4.0 P.M.
On that point I think it is quite fair to say that all public men who engage in public work and who take public positions, such as those of the Law Officers of the Crown, must make a sacrifice. Everybody will agree that from the Prime Minister downwards, in any Cabinet which exists, there is not a single public man who does not make a very considerable financial sacrifice in the duty he proposes to exercise on behalf of the State. Therefore, I think the House is entitled, this afternoon at any rate, to know the views of the Government on this point, especially when we are so much concerned with the whole question of economy, and as to whether, when we are altering, as we alter by this Estimate, from the 1st of January of this year, the salaries that obtained during the War, we ought not to revert to the old system by which the Law Officers received a fixed salary. The two figures of which there is any precedent are those I have mentioned, figures which were dealt with in the days when Lord Rosebery was Primo Minister—£10,000 for the Attorney-General and £9,000 for the Solicitor-General. £10,000 is the salary which the Houses of Parliament pay to the Lord Chancellor, probably the most distinguished lawyer for the time being, and, when the Lord Chancellor resigns, he resigns, as we know, on a pension of only £5,000. It is almost impossible, if not quite impossible, for him to return to any of the methods by which lawyers make their salaries at the Bar of the United Kingdom. The point, therefore, is whether you are going to deprive the country of the services of the most distinguished lawyers by fixing their salaries and not allowing them to draw fees. My own view is that the country has a right to expect of men in the legal profession the same amount of public sacrifice for the State as other public-spirited men in this House make. Of course, the obvious comparison is with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of this country only
receives £5,000, and he does not receive any allowance when he is deprived of his office. I often think that is a blot on the financial system of this country. There is nothing more derogatory to the dignity of public life in this country than that any public-spirited man who has risen to the high office of Prime Minister, and who is subject to the exigencies of election, should have no pension, because obviously, having once been Prime Minister, he cannot return to any kind of occupation, that not being the kind of thing that we anticipate or expect in this country. Our present Prime Minister, as we all know, is a public-spirited man who has risen from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest. He is a distinguished public servant who would find it extraordinarily difficult to take any kind of ordinary work if he were deprived of his office by election. He gives his services to the country for £5,000, a most inadequate remuneration, particularly as, unlike the post of Lord Chancellor, the office carries no pension when he retires.
I respectfully submit that that kind of public spirit which brings men to that post ought to animate distinguished members of the legal profession. It is an extraordinarily high office to be Lord Chancellor, Attorney-General, or Solicitor-General of any Government in this country. Those are the plums of the profession, and it is worth our while, particularly at this moment when we are reverting to a system of fixed salaries—£7,000 for the Attorney-General and £6,000 for the Solicitor-General with fees—considering whether a real economy cannot be effected by re-establishing the system under which the Attorney-General received £10,000, after all, a very munificent sum, and the Solicitor-General £9,000, doing away altogether with the question of fees. It is wrong that the Law Officers of the Crown should make as much as between £30,000 and £40,000, as they have done in the past, when you consider the question of fees. I have taken the year 1914 in order to leave both of my right hon. and learned Friends out and to show that there is nothing personal in the matter. That would be an economy which we could effect with usefulness to ourselves, and with credit either to the present occupants of those positions or those who may have the good fortune to follow them.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): We have had a very interesting speech from my hon. Friend opposite, and if and when the time comes when the salaries of Ministers of the Crown are revised, the subject of the salaries of the Law Officers may be a fit subject for discussion. I find myself in sympathy with what he said with regard to the remuneration of the Prime Minister of this country. It must seem to anyone who looks down the list of salaries of Ministers an anomaly that a man here and there, who perhaps does as much work and has as much responsibility as any other Minister, should receive half as much as some of his more fortunate colleagues. To-day, however, we are considering a Supplementary Estimate for Law Charges. Under Sub-head A there is an additional sum of £2,534, a proportion of which provides the War Bonus for the clerks in the Law Officers' Department, and the remainder for increasing the salaries of the Law Officers from the amounts at which they stood during the War to the amounts that they received before the War. My hon. Friend was perfectly correct in his statement of the case as to the fixed salaries paid to those two distinguished officers, and his history also was accurate, although I should like to remind the House that the change made under Lord Rosebery's Government was temporary. It was made by a Minute at the end of June, 1894, and in 12 months' time the salaries were placed on the same basis, with modifications, as had subsisted for very many years. The Law Officers' record during the War is one which I am sure will commend itself to the hon. Member who has spoken as to every Member of the House. Not only did they each voluntarily reliquish £1,000 per year of their fixed salary, but they accepted a reduction of the fees to which they were entitled of no less than 25 per cent. They did a vast amount of work in Paris for nothing, and that reduced the amount of work that they were able to do in this country, and for which they would have been paid. During the War they have done vastly more work even than the hard-worked Law Officers before the War for considerably less remuneration. Having regard to the fact that these reductions were agreed to for the period of hostilities, and to; the fact that each Law Officer on accepting office knew
perfectly well the financial terms of his appointment, I have no hesitation in asking the House to sanction, by this Supplementary Estimate, placing them back on the pre-War terms, dating from the signing of peace at the end of January last.
The other items in the Vote call for very little comment. We have under each sub-head the increased bonus which runs through ail the Civil Service Departments. We have an Appropriation-in-Aid which we have been fortunate enough to get this year owing to the costs that have been recovered in the Prize Court and Admiralty cases being greater than we expected. We have had more litigation in the Divorce Court than was expected, and that has increased the figure under Sub-head F. We have had to ask for a small addition under Sub-head K to meet certain special and unexpected law cases in which the Government have been engaged since the main Estimates were prepared. I make no complaint against my hon. Friend for raising the question of the Law Officers' remuneration I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friends will thoroughly understand that no personal charge of any kind is involved in the remarks that he made, but I feel, after the brief explanation that I have given, that the House will be perfectly satisfied and will pass this Supplementary Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that every Member of this House who has the interest of public economy at heart will register a vote against this Supplementary Estimate. It is not that we on this side of the House have the slightest feeling against either of the two Law Officers of the Crown, but we do feel that this is the last moment when any official salaries should be increased.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend realises that this is not an increase of salary; it is merely a question of restoring the salaries which the Law Officers have always received. We do not think that they should be asked to continue to make the surrender which they voluntarily made during hostilities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My hon. Friend made that Perfectly clear in his speech.

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will make it clear.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I also will make it clear. The Law Officers during the War were different from the present occupants. The present Law Officers were appointed on a definite scale, and this is not a restoration but an increase in salary. That being so, I think it ill becomes people who day after day have to exhort the people of this country to economise to have a rise in salary. It is not as though it were a question of a living wage or anything of that sort. The salaries of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, including fees, are notoriously extraordinarily high in comparison with all other official salaries, and that we should be asked now to raise these salaries to their pre-War level and far above the level of 1894 seems to me to be a mistake. It would be a mistake in ordinary times, but it is particularly a mistake now when the whole energies of the country are turned towards a reduction of expenditure and the elimination of extravagance. It will be known tomorrow throughout the length and breadth of this country that Parliament to-day has increased the salaries of the Law Officers, although it may be only to their pre-War level, and it will be known at the same time that every member of the Government is urging economy. Yesterday we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we could not point to one single item which it was possible to cut down. Here is that item, and I do protest that those people who persist in preaching economy in the country had better show a good example to-day and join us in preaching economy to a Government Department, and particularly to His Majesty's Treasury.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: It is not necessary for those who criticise this Supplementary Estimate to say that, of course, they do not refer to any individuals, nor that they are lacking in appreciation of the courtesy and ability of the present officers who fill these posts. It is a question whether this is a wise moment to increase these salaries. The same question arose in connection with the Ministers' (Salaries) Bill, and on that occasion the House came to the conclusion that it was not wise to vote additional money to Ministers of the Crown. I think it was recognised that a considerable hardship was inflicted by retaining
these salaries at the old level. I have the figures here for 1918–19, which are the latest available, and I see that the Law Officers of the Crown are shown in that account as having received on the reduced scale, the Attorney-General £8,400 and the Solicitor-General £10,300. So that in addition to the £6,000 and £3,000 respectively, which represented the voluntary surrender of £1,000, there was this £8,400 and £10,300 supplementary, in addition to the salary. I understand that the salaries are to be raised by the £1,000, which was surrendered during the War by the Law Officers. It is also proposed to raise the fees to the old scale. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Member who has spoken for the Treasury would tell us by what amount these lees are likely to be raised; what will be the value of these fees on the increased scale. They were £8,400 and £10,300 on the reduced scale; what are they likely to amount to on the higher scale? If he could give some figure, it would enable us to judge how much they would be raised on the whole if the scale of fees was raised in addition to the £1,000; then we should know how much we are voting in the way of supplements to the salary and fees. I agree with my hon. Friend who has spoken from this Bench. Much as we may feel indebted to them for their services, this is not the moment when we should vote additional money to the Law Officers of the Crown, and we ought to know how much money we are being asked to vote.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I reply on this one point, the reduction of 25 per cent. in the fees. It would be quite impossible to give any rough and ready calculation of what the amount might be in any particular year; they vary from one year to another. I have here the detailed account of the fees for many years, and they vary very much. The year before that which has been mentioned, it was many thousands of pounds less.

Captain BENN: I took last year as an example.

Earl WINTERTON: I think that some Coalition Back Bench Member should speak on this Vote, as, otherwise, what is known as the "Stunt Press" may say that a charge of excessive expenditure has been brought against the Government by hon. Members opposite, and that no supporter of the Government dares to answer the case. For that reason I

rise to speak. I should like to say that I agree with my hon. Friend when he said that hon. Members opposite were quite inaccurate and that it was simply a return to pre-War conditions. We had a very interesting dissertation from an hon. Gentleman opposite on the position of the Prime Minister in this matter. I agree with him in that. Is it not a fact, however, the non-legal Members of the Government, are in a different position from the legal Members of the Government. It seems to me that the constitutional position is this, that Ministers who hold a legal position, such as the Law Officers, are different from the Minister who simply represents his Department in this House. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General not only represent a Department, but they give their services in the Law Courts and therefore you must pay a sufficient sum of money to obtain the services of a first-class lawyer to represent the Crown adequately in the Courts. There is no comparison between such an officer and the Minister who holds a non-legal office. I have not much knowledge of the fees which are carned in the Courts, but I have one or two friends who have mentioned to me occasionally what these fees are, and I should say

that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, in view of their eminent position as lawyers, are not excessively paid for their services to the Crown. I imagine that it is the duty of Members of this House, as the representatives of the public, to ask themselves the question whether those who take on themselves the most onerous task of representing the Crown in the Courts should not receive a sufficient sum to enable the Crown to obtain the best possible legal advice. It is easy to make a case in the constituencies, to go down I and say, "Here is a man who was taking £10,000 or £15,000 a year and you are only getting £5 a week. That is not the point. The real point is that he has to represent the Crown in the Courts, and there is no comparison between that and the holding of a non-legal office by a Minister simply representing a Department in this House. I agree with the hon. Member's remarks about the amount which is paid to the Prime Minister. While it should be increased, it is not right to try to make an exact comparison with what has to be paid to the Law Officers.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 54.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[4.22 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Falcon, Captain Michael


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carr, W. Theodore
Farqharson, Major A. C.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Casey, T. W.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Astor, Viscountess
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gange, E. Stanley


Atkey, A. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gardiner, James


Baird, John Lawrence
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gardner, Ernest


Baldwin, Stanley
Clough, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel


Barker, Major Robert H.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Glyn, Major Ralph


Barnston, Major Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Goff, Sir R. Park


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gould, James C.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Grant, James A.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cope, Major Wm.
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Greig, Colonel James William


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hallas, Eldred


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin


Blair, Major Reginald
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Lewis


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. G rattan
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Bridgeman, William Clive
Duncannon, Viscount
Hinds, John


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Edgar, Clifford B.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Edge, Captain William
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Butcher, Sir John George
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Howard, Major S. G.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Simm, M. T.


Hudson, R. M.
Murchison, C. K.
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hen. A. (Aberdeen)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Neal, Arthur
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jephcott, A. R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Jesson, C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stewart, Gershom


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Kellaway, Frederick George
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Sugden, W. H.


Kidd, James
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Parker, James
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Pearce, Sir William
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Lloyd, George Butler
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lorden, John William
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Tickler, Thomas George


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Townley, Maximilian G.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Waddington, R.


Lyle-Samuel, A.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Lynn, R. J.
Purchase, H. G.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Rankin, Captain James S.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


M'Guffin, Samuel
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Reid, D. D.
Wason, John Cathcart


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Macmaster, Donald
Richardson, Sir Alblon (Camberwell)
Whitla, Sir William


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Macquisten, F. A.
Royden, Sir Thomas
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Mallalieu, F. W.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Mason, Robert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Major Earl


Middlebrook, Sir William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Moles, Thomas
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Seager, Sir William
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Seddon, J. A.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morison, Thomas Brash
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John



Morrison, Hugh
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Bonerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Smith, w. R. (Wellingborough)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Briant, Frank
Johnstone, Joseph
Swan, J. E. C.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Kenyan, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Tillett, Benjamin


Donnelly, P.
Lunn, William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
Malone, Lieut-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wignall, James


France, Gerald Ashburner
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilkie, Alexander


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hogge and Colonel Wedgwood.


Twenty-third Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for information on this Vote before it is passed, seeing that it deals with a not inconsiderable sum of £19,000 odd. In Item A there is a sum of £2,569 for reorganisation and additions to staff. I understood that great and growing
efforts were being made in the Government offices to reduce staffs, and it comes rather as a shock to find that we are asked to vote money on the Supplementary Estimates for an increase of staff in the Land Registry Department. I also gather from the Land Bills that are before the House that the Office of Land Registry is not very busy, that the elaborate machinery set up in the famous Budget of 1910 is not being used for the purpose of taxing land values, and, therefore, I think it is very important we should be
told why this not inconsiderable sum is required for additions to staff. I am sure no Member of this House will object to increased war bonus, but the taking on of additional staff for this service requires, I think, explanation and, unless the explanation is satisfying, I shall with great reluctance vote against the sum of money asked for.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think I shall be able to reassure my hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that not one penny of this money goes towards Somerset House or the valuation of land, or has anything to do with the 1910 Budget. This money that we are spending here on land registry is derived from a Bill passed about 25 years ago, the idea of the Bill being that we should establish an absolute title to land instead of the present incoherent form of title. That Bill has proved an absolute failure. It is only in operation in London. The land of London to which an absolute title has been given is almost absolutely negligible, and the whole of the money which has been spent on land registration has been thrown into the waste paper basket as far as any useful result is concerned. When, if ever, we get a proper valuation in this country it will automatically take the place of all this absolute title land, this granting of an absolute title, which has been going on during the last 25 years: but I do protest that when we are looking for every halfpenny we can save in this country, that we might begin by scrapping the whole of the Land Registry Department and thereby saving considerable sums to the Exchequer without doing the slightest damage to any vested interests in this country except the interests of solicitors engaged in conveyancing. Anybody who transfers land in the City of London—I think it is in the whole of London—has to get an absolute title. It involves the purchase of land in a far greater expense in London than it does even in purchasing land in the country, where an absolute title has to be got, and even in London, in nine cases out of ten, absolute title is not given, even after all that money has been spent, but only a provisional title which may possibly become absolute in the years to come. This is simply sheer waste of public money, and to put a Supplementary
Estimate forward as regards the Land Registry demanding an increase on the normal expenditure of that Department is an example, a complete example, of the extravagance of the present Government, which simply sees the necessity of carrying on the war conditions so far as Government Departments are concerned and cannot understand that now is the time when a perfectly superfluous Department such as this should be cut out.

Mr. BALDWIN: I listened with amazement to my hon. Friend, because he generally has some rudimentary knowledge on his subject. To speak about these Estimates being a heavy cost on the country, is really quite beside the question. This is one of the few Departments that not only pays for itself, but in normal years produces a surplus.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Land Registry Office?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes. If my hon. Friend had noticed the extra estimated receipts it might have suggested something to him, and if he had looked up the original Estimates he would have found that there was there a sum of £50,000 provided for fee stamps. The total amount we have received this year for fee stamps is £118,000, and the total cost of the Land Registry Office is about £84,000, so that a larger surplus goes to revenue than has ever been shown before. It has only shown a deficit during the four years of the War, when the course of business was reduced to a minimum. The reason the staff is slightly increased is that the business has enormously increased, and when I remind the hon. Member that the amount received from the office during the several years before the War averaged £50,000 a year, and that this year it is going to amount to £118,000, he will see at once how the business has increased, and that will itself justify an increased staff and, incidentally, answer the questions he first submitted.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If you make more difficult to transfer, is not that a tax on the whole of the community?

Mr. BALDWIN: I only have to justify this Vote to the House

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not put the House to a Division on this matter. I would like
to point out that there are very few lawyers who would not be glad to get rid of the Land Registry. Of course, I do not say that I share that view. I do not. But I am only appealing to my hon. and gallant Friend on that ground. The view that a very large number of the profession take is this: that if you make this Land Registry really successful it will sweep away a very large amount of the emoluments which they now derive for the conveyance of land. It is perfectly true, as my hon Friend (Mr. Baldwin) has said, that the total cost is paid by the fees which are received, and whatever objections are being alleged against the Land Registry—cumberous as it is in its working, and I quite agree it is an added inconvenience to the transfer of land at present in London—the principle, to my mind, is a perfectly sound one, and in course of time, when the difficulties are removed, as they may be under the new Conveyancing Bill which is at present before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I have not the slightest doubt that it will be found that this Government Department may be brought into much more effective development and may tend not only to speed up conveyancing but very much to cheapen it.

Colonel GREIG: No doubt this Land Registry does at the present time meet with a great deal of criticism. But the principle of it which causes the establishment, is a good one. The principle that the transfer of land should be registered in a public register is a principle which has not been put in operation, as it should have been, for the whole country, and when we can simplify, as we hope to do, the difficult and complicated titles of land, there is no reason why, with certain alterations in the existing law, it should not be just as easy here as it is in Scotland, where it is most effective. It will conduce to people knowing what their rights are in regard to the land, whereas now it is extremely difficult without' very minute investigation of title to do that. In London, it is true, there are objections from another branch of the profession, but the House should be careful in doing anything which would at all infringe the principles of the Act now on the Statute Book.

Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope my non. Friend in charge of this Estimate will give us some particulars as to the cause of the increase. I see we have the inevitable item of the increased cost of war bonus. But is it not probable that some of the increase is also caused by the fact that the Public Trustee has a very large number of enemy estates for realisation? If so, can my hon. Friend tell us how much of this increase might properly be allocated to that, and whether that increase might be regarded as temporary only?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am glad my right hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to answer that question. There can be no question of reducing the cost here, because the Public Trustee's office is an office in which the fees are calculated at such a figure as will pay for the expense of the office. With regard to what my right Hon. Friend said, I am sorry I have not picked out for him whatever work the Public Trustee may be doing in the direction of which he spoke. It may be of interest to know that the volume of work which the Public Trustee is doing for the people of this country is increasing steadily year by year and in very large proportions I have had taken out with some care some figures to show the progress the Department is making. The amount of property administered in 1914 was about £43,000,000 and the annual income administered something under £2,500,000. That has increased year by year, and to-day the amount of property administered is about £110,000,000, and the annual income about £6,000,000. What the cause of this increasing demand on the office of Public Trustee may be I cannot say, but in my experience, and probably in that of other Members, I find there is a growing tendency, certainly among the small estates, to make the Public Trustee the executor and administrator of the estate. The increases here have been on a very modest scale. The bonus is awarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, and we cannot get out of that. We believe that the office is very efficiently managed. It is an office that pays for itself by the fees charged for the work done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to know if the increased charges have tended to check the amount of work or this office. Those increases have been considerable, and we ought to know as soon as possible whether they have tended to check the movement which we welcomed before of a continual increase in the placing of work of this kind in the hands of the Public Trustee. I should like also to know how far the Public Trustee selects securities in which the funds are, or may be, invested. He is not confined to trustees' securities, and what is there to guide him as to the investments? This is particularly important at present when there is such a burst of almost gambling on the Stock Exchange in certain securities, and when the financial position is so particularly unsound that there should be the greatest possible care and scrutiny of any investments which are not of a Trustee character. I would like to be assured in the case of any fall in values that there will not be involved any loss upon the people who have entrusted their money to the Public Trustee.

Captain BENN: We have been told twice that because the fees charged meet the expenses of the particular office concerned that, therefore, criticism on the part of the House of Commons is not called for. I think that should not go without a word of protest. It is quite an unsound principle, apart from the merits of the work done. The fees charged might, for instance, be made extortionate in order to avoid any Parliamentary criticism, though I do not say this is so in this case. If the work is done in the private interest, then the private interest pays for it, but where the general taxpayer is concerned, it is our duty to see that the work is properly done.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is here a very remarkable increase of £88,000, and I should like to know the reason. There is an item for travelling and expenses, and an increased number of officers drawing subsistence allowance in consequence of the shortage of houses. There is also
a large item for repairs and I would ask is that due to the very regrettable increase in crime and the further use of the prison establishments of the country. During the War happily there was a great reduction in crime.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I mentioned last night on another matter that I regretted the Home Secretary was not here to answer questions. I know the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will answer with his usual courtesy and ability. I notice that the Under-Secretary to the Home Department is hero, but I think the Home Secretary ought to be in his place. Before I became a Member I used to attend a great deal as a spectator and I notice a great difference now in the attendance on the Treasury Bench from what it was in previous Parliaments. When the whole system of control over finance has been challenged I think it right to make a protest on this point.

Mr. T. THOMSON: With regard to the huge increase for buildings and repairs is it not desirable that the Government should not utilise labour and materials at the present time? The Minister of Health has circularised local authorities and asked them to veto luxury buildings. I do not suggest that prisons are luxury buildings in that sense, but I submit that building materials or labour should not be used by the State which might otherwise be used for the building of houses. The clamant demand for houses is infinitely greater than for repairs to existing buildings.

Major BARNES: May I ask if the item for repairs involves anything in the nature of extensions? I do not know whether any strain has been placed on the prison accommodation of this country on account of the steady stream of deportees from Ireland. Does this item include any extension at Wormwood Scrubs, which must be overflowing at present with Irish prisoners? A great many of those prisoners are hon. Members of this House and it may be that special provision has been made for them.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The increase in respect of repairs to buildings is owing to normal repairs which had to be held over during the War.
They do not represent any extension of accommodation. There were considerable arrears of repairs. Provision is also made as to the accommodation for prison officers which was very bad, and the charge is a necessary one on the State. The increase in the travelling and removal expenses is due to the fact that accommodation has been extraordinarily difficult to get for prison officers, and in the absence of adequate provision of the kind it has been necessary to give travelling allowances to a large number of men.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.0 P.M.

Mr. A. SHAW: The Estimate covers the cost of industrial schools, and the additional sum required under that heading is no less than £24,250. I am glad to see the Secretary for Scotland is present, and I must apologise to him for my remissness in not having given him notice of the point I wish to raise, but I know it has been familiar to him for some time. In the chief burgh which I have the honour to represent, there has been for many years past an extremely efficiently run industrial school, and that school is managed by a board of eminent citizens of Kilmarnock, and has been from year to year reported on most favourably by Government inspectors. It is an old building with very historic associations, and it was visited some time ago by a new inspector, who, unlike his predecessors, reported unfavourably, his unfavourable report being based on the ancient character of the building, and partly upon the fact that there was not within the confines of the grounds sufficient space for recreation by the boys. That report has been the subject of a good deal of comment and a very great deal of heartburning and dissatisfaction by those who have rendered eminent public service to Kilmarnock and the county of Ayr in making that institution so successful in the past. The point made by the inspector, that there was not sufficient ground for the boys to play on is sufficiently disposed of by this fact, that almost exactly opposite the institution there is a very large public park, extending
for many acres, to which these boys have full access.
I myself had the privilege of being conducted round the institution, and I made a very close investigation into all the arrangements, and I was struck by the energy and ability with which the institution was managed, and by the bright and intelligent appearance of the boys. That institution has rendered signally excellent service during a long period of years, and the question which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend is this. Why is that institution to be closed and scrapped at a time when the financial stringency of the country is greater than ever before? Surely this is a time when we ought to be getting along with the existing institutions which we have, provided they are reasonably efficient, and this institution, with its excellent management and long record of satisfactory reports by Government inspectors, is to be scrapped on the strength of a single adverse recommendation by an entirely new man. I know my right hon. Friend is in sympathy with the splendid work done by the managers in the past, and I should be obliged if he could give to the House an adequate explanation of a course which appears to involve a very great and very unnecessary expenditure of public money.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to preface my remarks once again by protesting against the absence of the Home Secretary. This money which we are being asked to Vote is in my opinion being largely wasted. A number of children in my constituency were taken up by the Government and placed in reformatory schools while their fathers were at the front. They were out of control because of the absence of the fathers, but now that the fathers are back some of the children are still being kept in these schools, although the fathers have stated that they are quite capable of disciplining and looking after these young people. That being the case, I think it is a grave waste of public money that these children should be kept on in the reformatory schools. I have protested about this, and I have received very courteous replies, but—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is challenging the general principle of the Vote, but on Supplementary Estimates discussion must be limited to
the amount of the Supplementary Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will leave that point, Sir, in deference to your ruling, and draw attention to the Items D to G and K to N, in which it states that the maximum cost of maintenance in any school will be 19s. a week for ordinary cases and 21s. a week for special cases. This sum is found by the Exchequer to the extent of £64,250. Might I inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office whether his Department have had brought to their notice an experiment in industrial schools in which the children were maintained for practically nothing at all. I refer to an industrial school known as "The Little - Commonwealth," established by a Mr. Homer Lane in Dorsetshire. To this school were sent young people whom the ordinary industrial schools failed to deal with successfully, and they came from the East End of London and from Harpenden—only those two places, because the initial expenses were put down by philanthropic men of means in London and Harpenden. The results were in every case excellent, and the school was practically self-supporting. It had to be closed early in 1918, during the War, but the lessons learned as testified to by people like Sir Robert Baden-Powell, the Bishop of London, and many other men very much respected in the public life of this country who visited the school, showed that simply wonderful results had been obtained there from cases which the police and police court missionaries and other reformatory schools had given up as hopeless. If those methods could be introduced into the Government reformatory schools, the results of which are in too many cases, I am afraid, nil as regards reform, I think a great sum of money could be saved to the State, both in regard to the direct sum which we are asked to vote for the maintenance of these unfortunate children, and in the future gain to the community by turning wayward and possibly criminal children into self-respecting citizens. I regret that under your ruling, Sir, I cannot examine the policy of these industrial schools, as last year the Estimate was guillotined, and we had no opportunity, therefore, of discussing the policy, but as we are asked to vote this extra sum of
£64,000 when money is so scarce, I thought I would like to draw attention to this extraordinary experiment in Dorsetshire.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: The work of industrial schools is not only important, but it is very difficult. It is to be hoped, therefore, in the interests of the children, that every care will be taken to see that the staff is of the very best. I would like to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case that all due care is taken to secure that the teachers in these schools are fully qualified, not only as regards the ordinary academic qualifications, but so far as is possible, by some special training for the work; also whether care is taken to secure that the terms of remuneration are at least equal to those given in ordinary day schools, and whether there is put into operation the minimum national scale recently issued by the Scottish Education Department.

Major BARNES: A great deal of interest is taken in the country in the question of the behaviour of our young people, and I would like to ask whether the increase in the Estimate is due to an increase in the number of children sent to these reformatory schools, or whether the increase is simply due to the ordinary rise in prices. It is stated in the White Paper that the contributions from the parents of children in the schools have proved recoverable in a greater number of cases than was estimated. Is that due to the fact that these children are coming from a better class, or to what is it attributed?

Major HENDERSON: There was a committee appointed last year to report on the salaries and conditions of service of officers in industrial schools and reformatories. I understand that that committee reported in April, 1919, and I should like to know from the Secretary for Scotland whether the recommendations of that committee have been generally applied to Scotland or not. Another point to which I wish to refer is this: Some of these industrial schools are employed in training boys for the sea service, and those particular schools are in a very difficult position at the present time, because they do not know what their future is to be, largely because of a report which was issued nearly nine months ago by the Parliamentary Committee which inquired into the question of national training for
the sea service. The Committee made certain recommendations, and no action has been taken on it so far as the Government is concerned. Therefore, these particular schools which are engaged in training those boys do not know what their position is to be, and they are prevented from improving their ships or improving their methods by laying out any money until they know what their future is to be. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs to give me any information on that point.

Mr. SPENCER: I wish to call attention to a case which has been taken up by some of my constituents who have been in communication with the Home Department. I at present am in communication with that Department, and I would ask that sympathetic consideration be given to the case. It concerns a girl who was sentenced, I think, to two years in one of these institutions, and the sentence came to an end on 3rd January of this year; but, for some reason or other, the girl is being detained in the institution against the wishes of the parents. I believe the plea given by the authorities is that this girl during those two years developed a kind of mental deficiency, and is not capable of taking care of herself. I understand the girl is doing in this institution all forms of manual work regularly, and if there is any need to keep this child in an institution, the parents are quite prepared to pay for the child being sent to an institution, and they wish to have her examined by some authority. It does seem to the parents that, the sentence having expired, the child should be allowed to come home. My point is that the authorities should give consideration to a case of this character. If it is essential, I will give the name. It is very unfortunate at the present time that the State should be burdened by an expenditure of this character which would be willingly borne by the parents themselves, and, although not a very large amount, it is, so far as the State is concerned, an unnecessary expenditure.

Major BAIRD: The case brought up by the last hon. Gentleman who addressed the House is one with which, I am afraid, I am not familiar, and I hope the House will believe that a single case of that kind is extremely difficult to deal with. If the
hon. Member will be kind enough to furnish me with details, of course the matter will be looked into at once, because the case cannot be left as it is left here. I hope therefore he will find it convenient to let me have the facts of the case so that it may be investigated. With reference to the question of salaries raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Major Henderson), as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the local authorities were recommended to raise the salaries in consequence of a report made by a committee that was set up by the Home Secretary last year, and we have altered the basis of our contribution, which accounts for the increased sum. The increase to which the House has already assented will enable a great improvement to be effected in the work of this Department. If I may be allowed to say so, I have personally taken great interest in this particular problem of the work of the Home Office since I have been there, and it has been most satisfactory to note the immense pleasure afforded to these devoted and self-sacrificing men and women who run these industrial schools from the knowledge that their work has been sufficiently appreciated to enable them to obtain adequate salaries and to attract the right people to do the work. That has been the difficulty in the past, and, as the hon. and gallant Member said, it is essential that men and women who are asked to do work which requires a special kind of training and special mentality, different from the ordinary school teachers throughout the country, should be remunerated at least on the same scale. That we are able to do owing to the new Regulations.

Major HENDERSON: Does that apply to Scotland as well as England?

Major BAIRD: It has hitherto applied. The industrial and reformatory schools which have hitherto been under the Home Office will be handed over to the Scottish Office on the 1st April, and I have no reason to anticipate that my right hon. Friend will act in any other way than to leave well alone. If he finds, as I think he will find, that on the whole the system is working well and showing undoubted improvement, I have no reason to suppose that my right hon. Friend will disturb that system. With regard to the experiment to which the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred, obviously if all this work
could be done for nothing it would be an advantage to the taxpayer. The school he mentioned was a very interesting experiment, but I am afraid that, although the experience gained is extremely useful, it is not of a nature that would render the system applicable, or, at any rate, possible to substitute for the system now in force. As regards the increased number about which the hon. and gallant Member (Major Barnes) asked, there is nothing abnormal in that; they fluctuate and they vary. Perhaps it is due to the fact that children's courts have been developed in different parts of the country, and children—for they are little more than that, after all—who previously might have been dealt with differently are now sent to industrial schools. I can say, from first-hand experience; the education that they receive there is in a great number of cases perfectly admirable, and children who would get a poor chance, through no fault of their own, but owing to the environment in which they have, unfortunately, to grow up, and who have to go through these industrial schools for some little offence, such as our own children commit without being punished, so far from being penalised, it is very often the best thing that could have happened to them. I think the House will agree that, so long as schools are run on those lines, they are rendering great service to the country They depend on voluntary contributions, on the local authorities, and increasingly, as they must., on the contributions which this House votes. So long as they continue to do the work, which any hon. Member can satisfy himself they are doing—and we welcome the visit of any hon. Member who wishes to see for himself—I think we can be satisfied that the money is well spent. I regret that, not having had warning, I am unable to answer in detail the question which my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw) put. If he will allow me to do so afterwards, I will, of course, have the greatest possible pleasure in doing so. I am not familiar with the particular school to which he refers, and therefore I cannot give him the detailed answer to which he would certainly be entitled

Mr. A. SHAW: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Minister with all the information on that subject is sitting on the Treasury Bench?

Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland knows a great deal, but I am afraid the information about Kilmarnock has not been transferred from our office.

Major HENDERSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question with regard to the future of the schools which undertake sea-training?

Major BAIRD: There is no difference in the treatment of schools as such. There is a difference between the training given to the children, and I think there is also a difference of opinion in the Mercantile Marine as to the suitability of the boys who go from these schools. It frequently happens that a boy wants to go to sea, but when he has gone to sea, and he finds it does not consist in standing on the bridge, he gets off his ship at the first port, and I am afraid we are bound to admit that we have not been as successful in training boys for the sea as we should like. But those schools are precisely on the same footing as all the other industrial schools if they show a good record, and if the inspector is satisfied that the tone, the atmosphere, and the training of the school are satisfactory.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask what decision the Treasury have arrived at with regard to the application of the clerks in the Sasines Office?

Mr. KIDD: Can the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, tell me whether the request of the old clerks engaged in Register House, Edinburgh, is likely to receive consideration? Under the new régime the new men get a salary and a pension, whereas those under the old system get no pension.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I may assure my hon. Friend that the matter has been the subject of much consideration between my Office and the Treasury. A decision has not yet been reached on the subject, but in arriving at it we shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. BALDWIN: Replying to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, the case of the clerks has been investigated by a gentleman appointed, and he has advised us that a certain number of them should be put upon the establishment. That will be done. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend further details at this moment; the question of terms is now under consideration.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: I suppose this only refers to charges for County Court work, and not for any new procedure? Can we be assured that the word "magistrate" only covers officers of the County Courts who deal with civil eases? If we found it was for magistrates such as resident magistrates, and that it covers criminal cases, that, of course, would be a much bigger point, and we should desire to make some effective protest.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think it covers all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh:"] I mean all who can be called officers and magistrates in Ireland, who are subject to the Civil Service.

Captain BENN: In that case I should beg to move a reduction in this sum on the ground—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has lost his opportunity, as I have already put the Question.

Captain BENN: I do not want to go into the general ground of the administration of what is called law in Ireland, but there are one or two questions—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not in Order on a Supplementary Vote. If the hon. Member will look at the Note at the bottom of the page he will see the purposes for which this money is asked.

Captain BENN: I understand I am only allowed to speak against the, increased sum of money which is being paid to these officers? But I presume part of the reason for the increase is on account of the duties which they are called upon to perform. I am not prepared again to rehearse the
shocking story of Irish administration, but I do not know that it would be out of Order to ask the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General for Ireland, who are present, whether they can tell us of the activities of these resident magistrates? For example, one might ask: Are they going to appeal against the conviction of the Executive in the Courts for the abduction of the boy Connors? Might I—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That should come on the Main Estimates, and under the head of the salary of the Chief Secretary.

Captain BENN: But is not this money to magistrates and others paid in the name of this House in Ireland? I shall content myself, however, with voting against the proposal.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I shall certainly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in voting against this sum of money. It is an insult to the House to ask for this money. Look at Item A: "Increased Salaries to Process Servers and Increased War Bonus—£18,690" — the whole sum being nearly £26,000, and this in maintaining law and order! I do not wish in any way to transgress your ruling, but there is no law and order in Ireland to-day. There is no attempt to bring people to trial. Such trials as there are are usually military courts-martial, and they are charged upon the military Vote. The whole thing is a crying scandal before God.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Really, that does not come on this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I quite appreciate your reproof, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and apologise. In the heat of my not unnatural indignation I was led astray. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will divide. I shall support him if he does. I think all lovers of fair play and justice, and, in fact, anyone with a sense of humour will support us in the Lobby.

Mr. T. WILSON: May I inquire as to Item B. (Allowances)? If the salaries and allowances for revising the voting lists come under this head I shall protest against this expenditure. Every week almost I get letters from people who actually do the work, and complain
that the allowances made to the persons responsible for doing the work is so small that it is an absolute waste of money.

Major BARNES: We do not want to do anything to defeat the ordinary processes of civil law in Ireland. We understand this is a Vote for County Court officers. We have also learned this afternoon that it refers to resident magistrates, and thus embraces a policy of which we disapprove.

Mr. SPENCER: What is included in the term, "Process Servers" under Subhead A? Is it part of the general administration of the police service in Ireland? If so, are we not in order in raising the general question? Is it not embodied in these terms?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I said before, the general question of administration cannot be raised. That comes on the Vote for the Irish Secretary's salary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Are we not in order in referring to the action of the Courts in Ireland and the action of the magistrates, without in any way dealing with administration? May we not criticise the administration of the Courts, or the lack of it, in Ireland to-day?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a purely Supplementary Vote.

Major M. WOOD: Ave we not to get some answer to the questions which have just been put? We want to know, for instance, how much of the £18,000 under Sub-head A is in respect of the increased salaries of process servers and how much is for increased war bonuses There is a great difference between the two. We can understand the second, but scarcely the first. It suggests that there are either more process servers doing duty in Ireland, or that they are getting more money than they got before, apart altogether from the increases due to the War.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am glad one of my hon. Friends opposite has asked what a "process server" is, because that was exactly the question I put when I first saw this Vote. I had not the slightest idea. I am advised, that a process server in
Ireland is a gentleman appointed by the Chairman of Sessions to serve processes. He is probably equivalent to the gentleman who collects debts in this country. The remuneration of these gentlemen is very small. Apparently they have been in receipt of £10 a year. Two or three years ago they petitioned for a bonus, but this was declined, my Department, as hon. Members opposite will realise with sympathy, with a desire always for economy, saying, "No bonuses for process servers." They continued to ask for more remuneration. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland approached us on the matter and asked for further consideration. It was decided to raise the emolument from £10 to £20. That amount is small out of this total. The term "County Court Officers" is a wide one. Although I can perfectly understand my hon. Friend, holding the views he does on Ireland, objecting to any extra money being paid to magistrates there, yet I would ask him, and the House, if it seems quite fair that war bonuses should be given all through the Civil Service to men of moderate fixed income who are doing work for the State and withheld from one class of persons because they happen to be doing a work of which some of us do not approve?

Captain BENN: We are precluded under the Rules of Order from Moving a reduction. This is the only method in which we can vote as we desire. There are many items in the Vote to which we have no objection; to others we have the greatest objection.

Mr. MYERS: It may be conceded that both magistrates and process-servers in Ireland to-day are entitled to all the money they can get for the services they render. But the general impression is that civil administration has been very largely suspended and curtailed, and that martial law has taken its place. Even if it is contended that general civic administration still obtains, it does not obtain to the same extent as hitherto. Yet in spite of that fact we have accounts presented to us under the various heads for a larger expenditure than has been required under normal conditions.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 62.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[5.45 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macquisten, F. A.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Falcon, Captain Michael
Magnus, Sir Philip


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Farqharson, Major A. C.
Mallalieu, F. W.


Atkey, A. R.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Manville, Edward


Baird, John Lawrence
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Martin, Captain A. E.


Baldwin, Stanley
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mason, Robert


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Foreman, Henry
Middlebrook, Sir William


Barker, Major Robert H.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Moles, Thomas


Barnett, Major R. W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gange, E. Stanley
Morison, Thomas Brash


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gardiner, James
Morris, Richard


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gardner, Ernest
Morrison, Hugh


Benn, Com, Ian H. (Greenwich)
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mosley, Oswald


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Gilbert, James Daniel
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.


Bigland, Alfred
Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gould, James C.
Neal, Arthur


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Grant, James A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Blair, Major Reginald
Greene, Lieut.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Borwick, Major G. O.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Greer, Harry
Oman, Charles William C.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Greig, Colonel James William
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Parker, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Haslam, Lewis
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Pearce, Sir William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Peel, Col, Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hinds, John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Hood, Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hopkins, John W. W
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Casey, T. W.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Purchase, H. G.


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard, Major S. G.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hudson, R. M.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Reid, D. D.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James F.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Renwick, George


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Clough, Robert
Jesson, C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rodger, A. K.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Cope, Major Wm.
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Royden, Sir Thomas


Courthope, Major George L.
Kidd, James
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mld)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Seager, Sir William


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Lloyd, George Butler
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)
Looker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lorden, John William
Shortt, Rt Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lort-Williams, J.
Simm, M. T.


Denison-Pender, John C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Lynn, R. J.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Donald, Thompson
Lyon, Laurance
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Stewart, Gershom


Duncannon, Viscount
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Edgar, Clifford B.
M'Guffin, Samuel
Sturrock, J. Leng


Edge, Captain William
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sugden, W. H.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)




Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Taylor, J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Winterton, Major Earl


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Whitla, Sir William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Wood, Sir J. (Staiybridge & Hyde)


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Tickler, Thomas George
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Yea, Sir Alfred William


Townley, Maximillan G.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Younger, Sir George


Waddington, R.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert



Wallace, J.
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hodge, Rt. Hon John
Rose, Frank H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Irving, Dan
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Kiley, James D.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilkie, Alexander


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hallas, Eldred
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayward, Major Evan
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Major Barnes and Major McKenzie


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood.

Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Resolutions agreed to.

Twenty-sixth Resolution read a second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: I rise to ask whether any representative here of the responsible Department can give us information as to the policy of the Government in respect of releasing from Government occupation the various museums for the purposes for which they were intended—whether, in fact, they will be released from use by temporary Government servants.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), who is, unfortunately, unable to be present, takes great interest in this subject, and has on more than one occasion raised the question of the release of the museums. Those hon. Members who are familiar with the course of the Debates will agree in saying that the replies received have been very unsatisfactory. I want to endeavour to obtain from the First Commissioner of Works, to-day, information as to how the matter stands at present. About a month ago a considerable
portion of the museums was still unreleased. There never has been a time in which it has been more necessary that the exhibits of the British Museum should be seen, in view of the fact that we are likely very soon to have an enormous number of visitors to this country. I am afraid the Government have taken up a very unwise attitude in regard to this question. It is a standing joke in the country that the museums are never going to be released. But I say it is no laughing matter. It is a very serious thing indeed that what is, perhaps, the best museum in the world should be occupied by Government staffs even now. I hope the Minister for Education will assure us that, before the 1st May, when the tourist season begins, at least this institution will be evacuated by the Government servants who now occupy it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I see the First Commissioner of Works is now in his place, and I may very briefly mention the points raised in his absence. I am sure the whole public interested in education and in the development of knowledge is anxious to know how matters stand, especially with regard to the British Museum. We want the whole of that magnificent institution released at once and put to its pre-war uses. We all agree,
I am certain, that, owing to the unfortunate five years of war, there never was a greater need of every possible educational institution and of every kind of organisation, no matter what it may be, which will tend to extend knowledge and create scientific interest. Anything which stimulates the mind after the atrophy of war should be brought into immediate operation. I should be very glad, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how matters stand with regard to the British Museum.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the First Commissioner of Works tell us what steps have been taken to replace any damage done or any serious loss which may have been incurred through the removal of objects of interest from the occupied parts of the British Museum, and can he assure both sides of the House that, at the earliest possible moment, all the galleries and institutions will be re-opened to the public.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): Of course, the British Museum Vote is not one of the Votes for which I am responsible. But as appeals have been made to me I propose to say a few words in reply. There seems to be a curious delusion in the minds of a great many people that the whole of the British Museum has been occupied by Government staffs. That is not the case. Only a very small part is so occupied, and, as I have stated in reply to questions in this House on one or two occasions, I hope to have the Government staffs cleared out before Easter. I can assure hon. Members that this question has given me personally a good deal of anxiety. I have from time to time endeavoured to find alternative accommodation for the Departments concerned. As is well known, there is great difficulty in finding accommodation at the present time, but it has been found, and the institution will, as I have said, be released before very long. In reply to the hon. Member's question as to any possible damage done to articles removed during the War, I have no official information; but I am told that apparently no harm has arisen either in the removal or in the storage of these articles.

Mr. SEXTON: I am really at a loss to understand why this objection has been raised to the presence of Government
Departments in Museums. To my mind it is the right place, for some of them are decided curiosities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Twenty-seventh Resolution agreed to.

Twenty-eighth Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

6.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This Vote includes a sum of £250,000 under the heading of "Grants for assistance towards the higher education of ex-officers and men of like standing," and the supplementary Vote indicates that the numbers have been very largely exceeded compared with the original Estimate. For that we must all be, of course, exceedingly grateful, and I am not complaining in any way of the increase from that point of view; but we desire, as Scottish representatives, some information as to what exactly is meant by the phrase, "men of like standing," and as to the manner in which this money is being used as between men who served as officers and men who have served in the ranks. I understand the definition which is adopted is substantially this, that a man of like standing is one who might have served as an officer, out chose to serve in the ranks. Some of us are curious as to the manner in which these grants have been given in the Scottish Universities, and the point I should be personally very grateful to have cleared up is that as far as possible the money is broadly and generously applied, and that no distinction is drawn between rankers and officers in admission to the University and the use of these funds. I recognise that, of course, a certain amount of preliminary training is necessary for entrance to even a Scottish University. I am not forgetting that point, but I should like to be assured on the others.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: There is no doubt considerable evidence that the Scottish Education Department has not been nearly so liberal in their later grants as they were when they first started to be made. The result is that many of the officers and men who have remained longest in the Forces are not getting exactly the same treatment as they would have got had they been released immediately after the Armistice. Many men
who were kept in places like Mesopotamia during the whole of the War deserve even greater consideration than those who came out immediately after the Armistice. I cannot help thinking these men are going to suffer for the longer time they gave to the Forces than others, and I should like an assurance that these men will be remembered, and that the fund will be administered in such a way as not to prejudice the men who have given the longest period of service to the State.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: The increase in this Vote is, I am sure, a matter of general satisfaction. It is expenditure which is sure to be reproductive, not only as giving a chance to the individual to make up for much that he was in danger of having lost, but it will bring back a rich reward to the nation itself for the expenditure. I should like, however, to be reassured on one or two points. The first is whether the number of recipients depends upon a definite sum at the disposal of the Department, or whether there is sufficient money to meet the case of all qualified applicants. It would be a very great hardship indeed for anyone who lost his opportunity in life of doing real service and being rewarded for what he has already done if there was any parsimony on the part of the Department. I should also like to refer to the question of the adequacy of the grant. I know that in many cases applicants have received the amount for which they asked, but they have found, in entering on their career, that that sum has not been sufficient and I should like to ask whether or not there is an opportunity for revision, so that matters in that respect may be put right. Then again I should like to know whether the sum depends on the number of fully qualified applicants, or whether it is regulated by this ll/80ths. I think every opportunity should be taken to make this scheme known. I should like to know who was responsible for its origination, because whoever it was deserves the thanks of the House and of the country as a whole.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask how the right hon. Gentleman came to make such a very bad Estimate. The original Estimate was £68,700 and the revised Estimate is £318,750, or very nearly five times the amount of the
original. That seems to me to be a very bad Estimate, especially if it was made in Scotland, where one looks for accuracy. I should also like to know what is the meaning of "men of like standing." Is the reason of this enormous increase that the number of "men of like standing" have been very much larger than was expected? I should also like to know what is the ago of these ex-officers and what it is that actually is done for them? Are they taught something useful? Perhaps the Minister for Education will enlighten us as to what good all this money is going to do to these people.

Captain W. BENN: I rise to ask for an assurance on one or two points. At the beginning of the War many most patriotic people joined in the ranks because they wanted to get to the Front as soon as they possibly could. It was a very great credit to them. In the Yeomanry a number of men who joined in the ranks were qualified in every way to command, but, naturally, the commanding officers did not like to get rid of such good material, and it would be very hard if, after having served under the hard and unpleasant conditions of the ranks, that prejudiced their chance in the slightest degree. So if there is an increased elasticity in the application of this rule we should be the very first people to welcome it. But my point goes rather further than this. I do not like these words, "men of like standing." I want to make perfectly certain that there is no attempt to apply any social distinction or restriction. We should like to know that there is no social barrier. There are qualifications which it may be very necessary to enforce before allowing a man to go to a university, because a man can only profit by the training on a certain substratum of education; but apart from that necessary qualification we should like to be reassured that there is no attempt whatever to exclude people who are what may be called "not nice people," or that there is no social barrier imposed between men who have served in the Army and the benefit which the nation intended them to enjoy.

Sir H. COWAN: I should like to ask whether it is not the case that in the earlier days grants were refused to some eligible applicants on the ground that the fund available was limited, and now that this much larger amount of money is
going to be placed at the disposal of the Department for this purpose, can these cases be reviewed?

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) asked me who devised this scheme. The scheme of assistance was initiated in December, 1918, under the Director-General of Civil Demobilisation and the Ministry of Labour, and the Scottish Education Department accepts the administration of the scheme only in so far as it is concerned with the attendance of ex-Service students at courses of higher education at the Scottish University, at central institutions, theological colleges, medical and dental institutions, and so forth. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) asked how such a bad Estimate came to be framed. For the financial year 1919–20 a sum of £68,750 was voted in the first instance. That was a purely provisional arrangement in the absence of any data which would enable one to form any sort of clear or definite idea as to the number of applicants who would come upon the fund. The sum I have mentioned was selected on the familiar basis of being eleven-eightieths of the amount which was voted for the same purpose in England and Wales, that amount being £500,000. The number of applicants for State grants from this fund turned out to be very largely in excess of our highest expectations. The Board of Education for England and Wales took an initial Vote of £500,000, and their Vote was increased on the 14th December, 1919, by a supplemental Vote of £1,500,000, making a total Vote of £2,000,000 for the current financial year. A supplemental Vote is now asked for the Scottish Board for Scotland, bringing the total Vote for the financial year to £318,750. An increase, however, will probably be sought in the financial year 1919–20, and in so far as it is possible to look ahead to the completion of operations under the scheme, it is estimated that the total cost to the Scottish Education Department will amount to something like £1,400,000.
The reason for the great excess in the total number of applicants above that which was originally contemplated was explained by the President of the Board of Education when he presented his Supplementary Estimates for this year, and his statement applies, so far as it goes, to the case of Scotland as well
as of England and Wales. There is, however, another reason for the large amount of the Supplemental Estimate which is now asked for Scotland, representing relatively a larger excess above the original estimate than the excess above the original estimate presented by the President of the Board of Education. The amount of the original Vote in Scotland was, as I have pointed out, based upon the Vote for England on the familiar basis of eleven-eightieths, being the proportion of the population of Scotland to the population of England. But I must point out that the number of students who normally pursue a course of higher education in Scotland is far higher relatively to population than is the case in England. Consequently, we find that the number of applicants for grants from the Scottish Education Department under this scheme, instead of being eleven-eightieths, as was contemplated, has been more than twenty-one-eightieths, or nearly double the population ratio. The number of applicants for England and Wales and for Scotland, up to the end of January, was 23,850 and 6,460 respectively. The number of students approved for grants up to that date per 10,000 of the population was in England and Wales, 5.9, and in Scotland, 10.2. The House will agree with me that that explains, if it does not justify, the disparity between my original Estimate and the Supplemental Estimates which I now present.
The House may be interested to hear the latest figures relative to the operation of this scheme in Scotland. The number of applications received was 6,649, the number of condidates approved for grants 4,995, and the number in training under the Scottish Education Department at the present time 4,347. The adminstration of the scheme rests very largely with the authorities of the universities and colleges which are attended by the students, and grants are awarded by the Department on the recommendation of a committee which considers the application and assesses the amount of grant with reference to the financial circumstances of those who apply. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of that committee. The reliance of the Department upon it has justified their trust in the most admirable way, and the committee deserves the thanks of the country as well as the thanks of the Department. I have dealt incidentally with several of the questions
put to me, but I should like now to deal with one or two other questions which I have not answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) put a very important question to me with regard to the qualifications for these grants, and he and other hon. Members expressed the hope that there was no social distinction drawn between the applicants for the grants. I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that no such distinction is attempted to be drawn, or has been drawn, or will be drawn. The qualification for these grants is a purely educational one, and, subject to the eligibility of those who have served in the military forces of the Crown, the grants are awarded on a certificate from the authorities of the university or the central institution, that the applicant's scholastic attainments are sufficient to justify his admission to a university course. Social status is not considered at all. Certain objection has been taken to the phrase "other ranks." Therefore it may be interesting to give the proportion of grants made to officers and to those of other ranks. The figures are as follows:—Approved for grants: other ranks, 3,018; officers, 1,977. On that particular matter I think the House need have no apprehension that considerations other than those which ought to obtain, namely, purely educational ones, do obtain. I have very great sympathy with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Major Mackenzie Wood) with regard to men who have served from the outset or nearly from the outset of the War. I agree with him that special consideration ought to be given, and I think will be given to all cases of that kind. The House will be disposed to agree that those men should not only not be prejudiced, but, if possible, should be advantaged by their patriotic service extending over a long term of years. I was also asked by another hon. Member (Sir H. Cowan) whether there was sufficient money to meet all applications, or whether a fixed sum had been set apart for the purpose. According to my information, there is no sum fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, so far as I am aware, there is sufficient money to meet all the applications which have been made, or are likely to be made in the future. I hope I am not too optimistic in my
last statement. At any rate, no grant has up to now been refused on the ground of lack of funds. I was also asked what was meant by the words "men of like standing." I think I have inferentially answered that in dealing with the educational qualification. If I have omitted to answer any questions, I apologise. I have endeavoured to reply to all of them to the best of my ability.

Sir H. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether a certain number of qualified applications have been turned down because sufficient funds have not been available, and will that matter be considered?

Mr. MUNRO: I was under the impression that I had answered that. I said that, according to my information, no application had been refused on the ground of lack of funds.

Sir H. COWAN: I can assure my right hon. Friend that such applications have been refused.

Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman has been at considerable pains to prove that there is no social or class distinction in this matter. He has also tried to prove that the words "of like standing" mean "of like educational attainments." If the words "officers and men of like standing" do not mean men "of like standing to officers," and do not mean that the officers are of a higher standing, then my efforts to understand the English language have been quite unsuccessful. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman says, I believe that in Scotland, as in England, these grants have been given to persons of a certain social standing who either ought to have provided university education for themselves or should have gone without it., The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is so totally at variance with the ordinary meaning of the words he has tried to explain as to leave me in very serious doubt as to what has really been done in distributing these funds, which are a very unfair drain upon the pockets of people who cannot afford to give a higher education to their own children, on account of the weight of cruel taxation. Under these circumstances, the House ought to be perfectly clear as to the class of persons who are assisted. This extra sum of £250,000 does not come out of the pockets of Scotsmen, who are
so proud about education, and who are so anxious to give gratuitous education in their universities, but it comes out of the Consolidated Fund, which in turn comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers in England. That seems to me to be an additional injustice.
It is not clear to me at all that there is any limit to this charge. The Secretary for Scotland said he did not think that anybody had been refused a grant on account of there being no money. What he mentioned as a merit seems to me to be a great fault. So far as I can make out, there is no limit of the amount of money Here we have a Vote for 500 per cent. move than the amount originally estimated, and, so far as I can make out, there is no limit to the excess that may occur or may be occurring at the present time Is there no limit to the number of gentlemen who may be sent to enjoy the advantages and amenities of a university education at the cost of the taxpayers? The right hon. Gentleman did not say so. He spoke of "qualified applicants." Who is a qualified applicant? Anybody who wants the grant? A university course is the most enjoyable time in anybody's life. The children of the rich long for and enjoy it more than anything else in their lives, and surely when the original Estimate is exceeded by 500 per cent. everybody might be considered as a qualified applicant. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is a qualified applicant, how it is decided that a person is a qualified applicant for a university education at the public expense, and whether there is any limit to the number of people who may enjoy these amenities at the expense of people who are ground down at the present time by excessive taxation and cannot afford to send their own son to college?

Mr. MUNRO: I cannot on this occasion offer to kiss the rod.

Sir J. D. REES: I have not invited the right hon. Gentleman to do that.

Mr. MUNRO: I cannot accept the views of the hon. Member. I can, however, answer his question, though I thought I had done so already. So far from its being the case that everybody can receive these grants who ask for them, there is a 'Committee which considers every application. They assess the amount of grant, having reference to the financial circumstances and the provisional requirements
of the applicant, the educational qualification of the applicant who is to be benefited, the course he desires to pursue, and their ability to admit him. I cannot tell the hon. Member the composition of the Committee which makes the recommendations, but they are academic persons whom he would admire. I trust I may now get the Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Resolutions agreed to.

Thirty-first Resolution read a Second time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Vote be reduced by £10."
I desire to cut out the cost of a declaration given last year for which we are now asked to pay. I refer to the Knight Commandership of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, which is one of the finest orders of chivalry, and which was borne with honour by many of my forebears when it was not quite so cheap a decoration as it has become in recent times. The bestowal of that coveted distinction—which ought to be the blue ribbon and the highest order to which a commoner who is a fighting man can aspire—on a foreign general, a hetman of Cossacks, whose methods of warfare have disgusted all right-minded people with whom he has come in contact, whose conduct—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not open on this Vote to criticise the bestowal of honours.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I accept your ruling willingly. I am somewhat surprised at it, but I will at once leave that portion of the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be surprised. It does not rest with the persons whose salary is borne on this Vote to grant these honours. They are only the instruments by which the honours are granted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I at once apologise for my use of the word "surprised". I do not wish in any way to challenge your ruling. It was owing to my want of familiarity with the method of voting money.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not finding fault with the hon. and gallant Member. I am only trying to explain that the principle of the bestowal of honours does not arise on this Vote and that the gentlemen here concerned were only carrying out instructions which were received from higher quarters.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged. I thought that I might possibly convey the impression that I challenged your ruling, which I did not wish to do. I understand that this includes the cost of providing the insignia and I believe that the average value of the insignia of the Order of the Bath is approximately £7. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or other Knights of the Noble Order of the Bath who may be present will correct me if I am wrong. For that reason I propose to reduce the Vote by £10 in order that we should not pay for this decoration, which was well described by a great daily paper in this country as an insult to democracy—a decoration conferred on a gentleman who the right hon. Member for Paisley described as an adventurer. As I understand your ruling, that this Vote only applies to wages, might I have your ruling as to whether we are to be allowed to protest, not against the action of the head of the Department or the Government which advises His Majesty to bestow this decoration, but against being asked to pay for the collar and star and ribbon of this Order out of public funds? I do not wish after your ruling to question the head of certain Departments for advising His Majesty to bestow this decoration, but I do protest most emphatically against the public having to pay for it. My protest is against paying for this decoration bestowed on a foreign general for no known services. The list of decorations in war time has swollen out of all recognition, and that we should have to pay for these decorations is most objectionable. I hope that I shall receive support from those who have some respect for this ancient Order of chivalry in protesting against such an episode.

Major KELLEY: On a point of Order. Is it not contrary to the dignity of this House to discuss the action of His Majesty?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that that is not a question which can
be discussed. The question which the hon. Member is asking the House to decide is whether, His Majesty having been pleased to grant a particular Order to a particular individual, the House is going to pay for the insignia or not.

Major KELLEY: Might we know the name of the person to whom he is referring, because it is an indignity to this House, His Majesty having conferred a distinction upon a particular individual, to have it discussed in this House?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Those who object to this insignia being paid for in no way mean to criticise the action of His Majesty Needless to say, we take it that His Majesty simply acted, as he always does—and I regret even to have to make the point clear—on the advice of his Minister, but we consider that this is a case where we should protest in the only way that is open to us, by refusing to pay for the insignia. I had intended to ask a question with reference to the Order of the British Empire, if it is in Order. Might we be informed how many Orders are paid for out of public moneys under this Vote? Is the amount under sub-head B only to pay for the insignia presented to foreign officers and statesmen? If so, I have no doubt that the House, with the one exception which I have indicated, will be only too pleased to pay for this compliment, much prized as it is, because on the Continent a ribbon or British decoration is highly prized, in spite of the recent event which I have indicated, and will continue to be prized by our Allies and distinguished statesmen and officers who performed good services to our Empire; but, while we in no way object to paying for these marks of appreciation of services rendered to us by foreigners, we think that the recipients of the Order here should at least pay for it. We do not think that in many cases they are people who are not well blessed with this world's goods, and we think that they could well afford to pay for this honour, which so many of them prize.

Amendment not seconded.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Thirty-second Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MYERS: I suppose I shall have the general agreement of every Member of the House when I say that we are glad His Royal Highness is making the trip to Australia and New Zealand, and, from the same point of view, that we hope the trip will prove enjoyable and that he will benefit in every possible way from it. I want to make my emphatic protest against this House and the country voting this sum of money for that undertaking. If the trip is required let it be taken, but not at the expense of the community, many of whom cannot afford to find their way to the end of their own streets. With all the strength and emphasis of which I am capable I tender my protest against this expenditure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Thirty-third Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask a question as to Sub-heading A, Salaries and Wages. This is a sum of £470,000 to pay for the expenses of the emergency transport that was put into service during the railway strike. I do not intend in any way to bring up the question of the railway strike. Neither my doing so, nor the interruptions of my hon. Friends from the North of Ireland, or those of the hon. Member for Holderness, would be in order. I do not want to question the Government's policy; I did that in Committee. The question I wish to ask is: How much of the sum I have mentioned is due to salaries and wages, and how much to hire of vehicles? We were told these services were voluntarily given. No doubt many of them were. I understand that very high wages were paid to many so-called volunteers, more money than they would be earning in the ordinary course of their work. I am told that the payments were as high as 30s. a day for girl motor drivers, and £2 a day for amateur men motor drivers and the like. By amateurs I mean people who do not ordinarily ply for hire, private car owners and chauffeurs employed by private persons. To begin with, I think the amount spent is much too high. The
Government was full of self-congratulation on the breaking of the strike and all the rest of it, although we know now that it was settled by agreement. We were led at a time to believe that the whole community rose in their wrath and saved us from the wicked strikers. Let it not be forgotten that about 40 per cent. of the wicked strikers had served in the War as private soldiers. Now we are asked to foot the Bill. Payment for the cost of petrol I would never for a moment cavil at. If people send their cars, petrol ought to be supplied, but that they should be paid for the vehicle and that their driver should be paid, I think is most questionable. I understand that one of the leaders of the National party, the hon. Baronet who represents Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) sent the money which he received for driving a railway engine, first to the railwaymen's hospital, and, when that institution would not have it, he returned it to the State. That was very patriotic of him and very wise. Why should not other people have done the same thing? I admit that people should be paid their out-of-pocket expenses, but there was a lot of money thrown about in a most unnecessary way on this service, and if we are to have more strikes, as we may have, I think we should be prepared to see that the money expended is spent economically. After all, the people who volunteered for service in the War got a shilling a day. Why, then, should girl motor drivers get 30s. a day for this service?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I associate myself entirety with what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it is lamentable that when such a question as this is raised we should not have the privilege of seeing the Minister of Transport on the Government Bench. He is neither sick nor absent, for he is within the precincts of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was not in power when the strike took place. It is quite true that it was necessary to keep going the supply of the necessaries of life during the strike. But the way in which money was thrown about during the strike to people who are usually not in the ranks of labour, was a positive scandal. We have a right to an answer from the Ministry of Transport as to whether this money was expended economically or otherwise.

Sir J. D. REES: When the Home Secretary answers I hope he will kindly explain to the House what would have been the loss to the country if this expenditure had not been incurred. Will he explain also what would have been the result of adopting the characteristically Bolshevik attitude of hon. Members towards trade, commerce, industry and the prosperity of the country? Of all things in this book of Estimates that might have been objected to, to object to expenditure which saved the country at a time of unparalleled difficulty, when everyone remotely connected with business knew that everything was hung up and that an immense disaster was impending, seems to me astounding.

Mr. WALLACE: I wish to associate myself with the observations made by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken. It has been said that most extravagant prices were paid for the hire of motor vehicles. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me, if he can, what was the price paid.

Sir W. DAVISON: Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us whether any estimate has been made as to what the loss of infant life would have been in London, if the milk supply had not been maintained by the admirable service of motor lorries in Hyde Park?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): As I understand it, what hon. Members require is to get information rather than to make any direct objection to the Vote. It is quite a mistake to suppose that any girl drivers or any others were paid at the extravagant rate suggested. Where any payment was made at all, it was made at trade union rates of wages, no more and no less. If everyone who drove a motor or assisted voluntarily in that strike had been paid, the figures in this Vote would have been very much larger. There were many of the class who cannot afford to give their services for nothing, and who are in the habit of receiving trade union rates of wages, and very properly when they came to the rescue of the babies, as my hon. Friend has put it, they deserved to be paid the trade union rate of wages as a return for what they did.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If they were paid trade union rates of wages were they paid £1 a day subsistence in addition?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot say. There was no flat rate of £1 a day. How much any individual who went down, say, to Gloucestershire or Dorsetshire, or a distant place like that, got, and properly got, I cannot say. I hope it is not the suggestion that there was any attempt to pay outrageous rates to people as a bribe to them to help us. There were certainly no such attempts. With regard to the hire of vehicles, I am sorry that I cannot give definite information. The figures vary, of course, very much. They were paid as cheaply as possible at the time, but I cannot give detailed information. With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees), I am not able to give any estimate of what the strike might have cost the community had it lasted as many weeks as it lasted days. It was stated that directly and indirectly the strike cost something like £10,000,000. How much it cost the railways, how much it cost the country by delay in demobilisation and other matters, it is extremely difficult to say. I have no doubt that I shall have the House with me when I say that, having regard to the gigantic nature of the task, the importance to the community that they should be paid, and that this absolutely essential service should be maintained, the cost is as cheap as it could possibly have been in the circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: I should like to ask a question. During this period there was an Order reimposed with reference to cyclists carrying rear lights. Is that Order still in force?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Resolution.

7.0 P.M.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he can tell us why the Minister of Trans port is not here to answer these questions? At the time of the Division he was here for some moments previous to the Vote being taken. I saw him not only in the precincts of the House, but in the Chamber. While many of us do not wish to question the propriety of the Vote, we think he should be here, if possible, when his Department is concerned.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a question to be answered by the Home Office.

Mr. SHORTT: May I say, to avoid doing an injustice to the Minister of Transport, that this has very little to do with the Ministry of Transport? It was the Food Ministry that incurred most of the expense.

Captain W. BENN: Why is not the Minister of Food here?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Notice of Motion before him, he will see that it refers to the Home Office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions Thirty-four, Thirty-five and Thirty-six agreed to.

Resolution Thirty-seven read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I would like to ask a question with regard to these discharged and disabled men for whom the grant is required, and particularly with regard to those who have been attending technical schools. Will they be paid the unemployment donation? Is this simply a Supplementary Estimate to meet expenditure upon this ground? Some time ago a circular was issued at the public expense—at least I gathered so from the references in it to the Department—telling those men that they would receive six or twelve months' training in a technical school, and that then they would be placed in an instructional factory where they would get work of some kind. Now the majority of these men are in a difficulty. Quite a large number of the disabled service men have been given this six months' or twelve months' training in a technical school, and they find they are now thrown out into the street because employment cannot be found for them, and the Department is not able to give further instruction to them. Therefore they cannot finish their course, and they are turned out without employment by the Advisory Committee, which ought to obtain employment for them, and still it is placing more men in the technical schools. Is the right hon. Gentleman (the Minister of Labour) going to see that when they leave the technical schools they will continue to be paid the out-of-work donation? Is he going to see that they get this out-of-work donation until they find employment in
the ordinary labour market? It is a gross injustice to these men that, having served for twelve months, receiving this training, the further years of instruction under the technical scheme cannot be given to them because employment cannot be found. They must do the best they can in the open market. I am going to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Quito a number of these men are only entitled to small pensions and a great number of them were disabled during the War. I think that greater efforts should be made to find the employment for them which was promised, and in the meantime to give them full unemployment donation and let it continue until they can get work in the open labour market. An opportunity should be given to these men, and they should not be thrown upon the streets without moans of earning a livelihood.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): Some of this Estimate is intended to cover up to the end of this month, the close of the financial year, the expense of unemployment donation to the discharged ex-service men. The reason for that is that we underestimated the amount which would be required for the current year, and there is an extra sum needed owing to special circumstances upon which we have not calculated. A large amount of the Estimate is owing to unemployment following upon the moulders' strike which turned out to be larger than was originally expected. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) the position is this: the amount which is included in this Estimate covers all the cost of the disabled men who fall within the rules.

Mr. T. WILSON: They are only entitled to so many weeks of the donation.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, and if the man at the time when he took this technical instruction or when it finished had exhausted previously all the amount of donation to which he was entitled, then when he came out from that technical instruction he would not be able to draw any more unemployment donation, but if his unemployment donation was not exhausted he would be able to claim his allowance, and he would be entitled to go into technical institution. The hon. Member has made an appeal, as I understand
it, on behalf of these men. He has said that having taken this course and gone through the process of training in a technical institution, they find that there is a gap between the technical training and the training in a factory or workshop. That puts the man necessarily in an unfortunate position, and he suggests that if the man has exhausted his unemployment donation something should be done for him. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the matter is at present under the consideration of the Government. We are now going into the possibility of doing something in special cases of hardship to help these men. The hon. Member has made an appeal to me, and I cannot help going an to make an appeal to him. The Local Technical Advisory Committees are the people who are placed in charge of the task of finding vacancies for these men who have been trained. What has happened, I regret very much to say, is that the Trade Unions in many instances prevent these men from getting any of the vacancies at all. I will give some illustrations of that. At the present time in London people who have been trained as plumbers cannot get any of the vacancies, because the Plumbers' Society will not allow them into that trade. The same thing has occurred at Bristol. Men who have got instruction as bricklayers are not allowed to continue their course in the ordinary work of the industry, because the bricklayers will not allow them. In the furniture trade the same difficulty is being found; they will not allow the men to go into the trade unless they are counted among the number of apprenticeships allowed. The employers in the engineering trade are perfectly willing to give the vacancies to these men, but they cannot do so because of the trouble caused by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make an effort to deal with this situation. They have often come to me with the general claim of the right to work, and I hope they will listen to this appeal.

Mr. MYERS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers had 2½ per cent. of their membership unemployed?

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order. May I ask if the Minister of
Labour goes into this general criticism of the attitude of trade unions, will hon. Members be allowed to reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was answering an appeal made to him by making in return an appeal to the hon. Member who made it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal, and an appeal has been made to us to allow the Debate to finish at a quarter past Seven o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Sir R. HORNE: When the point of Order was raised I was making this appeal. This right to work, if it exists for anybody, ought to exist for those people who served their country so well. I am certain that the appeal I now make will be responded to and that the matter will be considered seriously in view of the circumstances of the men who are deprived of the opportunity to work which we all wish to give them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have only half a minute in which to speak, and, as I did not take part in the previous Debate, hon. Members have not heard the arguments that I should have put before them, [Interruption.] I protest against the general attack made by the right hon. Gentleman, which may or may not be justified from a Parliamentary point of view. I am not dealing now with the rights of the ease. [Interruption.] I do not think it is entirely English on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Captain Stanley Wilson), who is always so disorderly when he comes into this House. I do not think it is in accordance with the traditions of this House and of Parliament, as I understand them, to make an attack like this at the last minute, when we are precluded by our bargain from making any reply. [Interruption.]

Sir F. BANBURY: An arrangement has been made, and I am sure it is not the wish of the hon. and gallant Member to upset it. May I, therefore, appeal to him to allow a Division, if there is to be a Division, to be taken?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to meet the right hon. Baronet, and I wish more hon. Members followed his example in this House. I do not mind hon. Members interrupting me—it is a great compliment in this House—but on this particular occasion I had one minute in which to speak, and was interrupted in a most unparliamentary way. Now the right hon. Baronet appeals to me to keep a bargain, but this sort of treatment strains my loyalty to that bargain considerably.

Question put, and agreed to.

Thirty-eighth to forty-third Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [2ND MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Class I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,350, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31th day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £207,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [3RD MARCH].

Resolutions reported;

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Class I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £235,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [4TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL, SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Class I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £482,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Survey of the United Kingdom and for minor services connected therewith."

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £213,520, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating, of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,620, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings
in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon, and for Grants in Aid."

5."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,565, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for payments under the The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., The Rail ways (Ireland) Act, 1896, The Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."

Class II.

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,441, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £51,787, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under The Light Railways Act, 1896."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [9TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported;

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

Class II.

1."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and of the Food Production Department, including certain Grants in Aid."

Unclassified Services.

2."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Cost of the Bread Subsidy."

Class V.

3."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £225,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year
ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."

Class VII.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

MR. LONG'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): When it fell to my lot, on two previous occasions, to introduce to the House the Navy Estimates, on each occasion the Board of Admiralty, which I represent, were severely criticised, because it was said that we had failed to produce a policy. At the time I ventured to urge that that criticism was not well-founded, and in the statement which I have had the honour to present to Parliament, we have given, I think fairly fully, the reasons why, on the two previous occasions, it was quite impossible for the Board of Admiralty, with any due regard to their responsibility, which was very great, to define with any accuracy or completeness what their policy would be for the future. The House knows that the conditions in the world were unsettled, and that it was impossible to say what the immediate consequences of the Armistice would be. There were other reasons, which I need not dwell upon now, which made it really impossible for us then to formulate a policy. I have no doubt that the critics—they are always with us—will find some reasons even now to find fault with the action of the Board of Admiralty. Indeed, I have been told that in some quarters we are found fault with because it is said our
Statement on this occasion is too long. I dc not know, but I think that the critics must be very hard set to find something for which to blame us when they say that the statement we have circulated is more full on matters of detail than it ought to be. Let me remind the House of what the occasion is. We are, for the first time at the Admiralty, presenting real peace Estimates to the House of Commons. These Estimates and the policy which they represent are largely based upon war experience. It has often been said, and I think it is certainly true, that the whole world has been changed by the War through which we have passed and from which, I am happy to say, we have emerged victorious. Therefore the policy of the Admiralty must be constructed upon that basis. The conditions are changed and we have to try and look into the new future with as far-seeing vision as we can command. We thought at the Admiralty, and I believe that on reflection the House and the country will agree with us, that we ought to take this House in the first place, and the country which will learn from this House what has happened, as fully into our confidence as is possible, or, in other words, to abandon the policy which has too often obtained, of secrecy and concealment, and to place our cards frankly and openly on the table and let everybody know what we think ought for the future to be the governing principles of the Board of Admiralty and the Government of which we are a part. If in doing that we have laid too great a burden on the industry and attention of Members of Parliament, I can only say we are sorry they should be so troubled, but, none the less, we are unrepentant sinners, because we believe the course we have adopted is the right one.
It has been frequently stated in the newspapers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister instilled into his Ministers, and especially into his colleagues who are connected with the great spending Departments, the principle and the rule that they must, in face of existing circumstances, be severely economical in their presentments. But it has not been stated that the Prime Minister did not end his admonition there. It is quite true that he told us, as it was his duty to do, that, in face of existing conditions and the immense burden of
debt, for which, as a result of the War, we are responsible, that the great fighting and spending Departments must be severely economical in all that we propose; but he told us, in addition, our economy must be consistent with absolute efficiency. We, at the Board of Admiralty, believe that in the Estimates we are asking Parliament to sanction to-night we are making proposals which are consistent at once with strong economy and, at the same time, with full efficiency.
May I say here that we owe a very great debt to the present Board of Admiralty and to their predecessors, the old Board of Admiralty, for the very hard work continuously done since last autumn, when we began to consider what our Estimates and our policy ought to be. At that time many members of the Board of Admiralty had been very hard at work right through the War. The Second Sea Lord abandoned his leave, which he badly needed, in order to preside over a Committee of Naval Lords, whose duty it was to investigate the whole situation and arrive at conclusions as to what the Navy of the future ought to be. He was, I need hardly say, aided by his colleagues. I venture to ask the House to let me pay a tribute here to the work done by them, the Civil Members of the Board, the Secretary (Sir Oswyn Murray), the Accountant-General (Sir Charles Walker), and by the other officials for their extraordinary labours from August last upon this examination of the Naval situation which has resulted in the policy which it is my privilege to present to-day. The conclusions of that Board were adopted by the Board which is in existence to-day, and continuously from that time to this until the other day we have been engaged in ascertaining how we could, consistently with efficiency, present to the House Estimates which are really and truly economical. That task has been completed, and I pay this tribute to my Naval and civilian colleagues the more easily, because my own part of the detailed work has necessarily been far less than theirs.
I desire to direct the attention of the House first of all to the personnel. The reductions there are very remarkable. Before giving the figures, I say quite frankly to the House that in presenting these reduced Estimates it is an undoubted fact that we run some risk, if
risk it may be called; but we believe, and the Government to which we belong believe, that we cannot possibly be exposed to any real risk of a contest for our supremacy at sea, if ever, at all events for some time to come. Therefore we are justified in asking the House to approve of Estimates which represent much lighter demands on the taxpayer than would be the case if we thought that we must face immediate dangers and provide against them. Let me give the House the figures. At the time of the Armistice the strength of the Navy was 407,317. In November, 1919, it was more than 257,000. The maximum for next year, that is 1920–1921, which we are entering upon, is 136,000, and at the end of next year the number will be 131,000. The number required for the Fleet which we ask for in the future, the post-war Fleet, is 127,500. In 1914–15, the year in which the War began, the numbers were 151,000, and in 1920–21 they will have fallen to a maximum of 136,000. I do not think that the most determined opponents of armaments can deny that the reductions we have made have been very great. It has been said that we have got too many of the men who were enlisted for hostilities only, that is for the War. As a matter of fact, there are now only between 900 and 1,000 of them left, and of those 600 belong to the trawler reserve, and they are kept on waiting for the reconditioning of their trawlers.
This immense reduction in numbers in volves, of course, a consequential reduction in officers, because it must be obvious to the House that this diminution in total strength involves a surplusage of officers for whom there will be no employment. I am very sorry that I am not in a position to-night to state precisely what the terms will be which we propose to offer to officers who may be prepared to retire. There are two or three details of the scheme which are not yet finally settled with the Treasury. We anticipate that they will be settled within a very few hours. I was quite hopeful that they would be settled in time to enable me to make the announcement to-night. We are doing our best to see that the terms offered to them shall be satisfactory terms and such as will enable them to turn their great ability and knowledge and experience into other
channels and other professions and occupations in a way which will, I think, on the whole not be regarded as ungenerous even by the severest critics. Until they are approved no definite announcement can be made. There is the case also of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Here, again, we are not in a position to state precisely what the plans for the future will be. We feel that a great debt is due to those great branches of the Naval Forces for the splendid service which they rendered throughout the War and before the War. We readily acknowledge that they must form an essential part of the Naval Forces of this country in the future, and we have every intention of availing ourselves again of their services. The precise details of the scheme depend very largely on the exact numbers required in the Reserves, and until that question, with one or two others, is settled we cannot announce what the arrangement will be. But the members of these great Forces may rest assured that the Board of Admiralty is in no way unmindful of the debt which this country owes to them, and we have every intention of doing our best to secure their invaluable services in the future.
So much for the personnel. I now come to the strength of the fleets for the future. In the statement which has been circulated I have given what the fleets are and what their composition in the future is to be. The Board of Admiralty and the Government were confronted with an extraordinarily difficult task. Before the War various Governments had to consider what the strength of the possible enemies on the sea opposed to them might be, and, as the House knows, there were various standards taken. But I think it was generally accepted that our strength ought to be equivalent to that of the two next strongest Powers, and in one sense—I am not pretending that there were not many difficulties—the task was easier then than it is for the Board of Admiralty to-day, because while it is, of course, essential that the Navy of Great Britain must be maintained at a strength and a standard of efficiency sufficient to enable it to do its duty by the Empire, yet it is also true that, look where you will, you will find it difficult to-day to find a possible enemy. The Germans, who were the cause of this War, who brought
so much suffering upon humanity, who were so proud of their Navy, who built it at such immense expense to themselves and thereby entailed very great expense upon us too, the Germans are to-day without a Navy. A portion of it lies beneath the waters of Scapa Flow, and a portion of it has been distributed by the Allies in the different forces of those Allies. The Germans have disappeared. There is practically no naval Power to-day which can offer to us any serious threat of opposition, or indeed any threat, because the navies of our principal enemies have been destroyed.
Looking round the world to find what are the navies which at this moment can compare in strength with our own, we find that the only one is the navy of the United States of America. I believe it is a fact that the naval policies of all past Governments, whichever party they represented, have, at least, included this common principle, that our Navy should not be inferior in strength to the navy of any other power, and to this principle the present Government firmly adheres. We are very fortunate in the fact that the only navy approximating in strength to our own is that of the United States of America, with whom we are associated in such a way that the idea of competition in armaments between us is one that is, to put it mildly, repugnant to us all; and we here—and I speak now, not merely for the Board of Admiralty, but for the Government—hope and believe that if there is to be any emulation between the United States of America and ourselves, it is likely to be in the direction of reducing that ample margin of naval strength which we each alike possess over all other nations. That is the foundation of the naval policy of His Majesty's Government. This is not a matter for the Admiralty, this is a matter for the Government, and this is the policy which we have deliberately adopted, and I, at least, think it is a policy which will commend itself to the House of Commons and the country.
We have sometimes been told that the old distribution of our fleets ought to be altered, but that is not the view of the naval advisers of the Board of Admiralty and it is not the view of the Board of Admiralty itself. We still have, as our two main fleets, the Atlantic and Mediterranean, and I would only say to those
quite friendly critics who have often suggested that the real strength should be concentrated in the Mediterranean but not in the Atlantic or Home Fleet that I do not think there is any real point of difference between us, because it is perfectly easy at any moment, in a very short space of time, to work those two fleets together in such a way as to make the one helpful to the other. I will instance the case which arose only the other day, when, as the House knows, we sent the First Battle Squadron of the Atlantic Fleet, which was then at Malta, to reinforce the Mediterranean Fleet at Constantinople, because the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean wanted his forces strengthened. Therefore I think we are justified—at all events that is the considered view of the Board of Admiralty—in retaining the old division. Then we have the various squadrons stationed all over the world. There has, I know, been discussion at one time and another over the policy of what is called showing the Flag, that is, sending our squadrons of light cruisers into the waters of the world. Since I have been at the Admiralty I have had many opportunities of discussing with men at first hand their experiences in different parts of the world, and I am satisfied that anybody who approaches this question with an open mind, and who will take the opportunity of discussing it with men who have returned from different parts of the world, will come to the same conclusion as I have done, namely, that it is essential, in the interests, not of peace or war, but of trade and commerce and progress and prosperity, that our ships should show the Flag in different parts of the world. I am also certain of this, that anybody who will take advantage of the experiences of these people who come home from these different places will find that there are abundant cases where the appearance of an English cruiser in foreign waters has given an enormous impetus to the efforts and labours of those who are trying to push British trade in different parts of the world.
Therefore to that policy, the policy of our two main fleets and of our squadrons showing the Flag, we confidently adhere, and we believe that the Navy which we are asking for, and which we are distributing in this way, is adequate for the work that it has to do. May I remind the House of this very pregnant fact? Previous First Lords have had the great
advantage of the services of distinguished sailors who have served the Empire in many parts of the world, and in the Board of Admiralty, in different offices, with distinction and ability; but no First Lord, for I do not know how many years—I am very bad at history—has stood in the position that I stand in to-day, and that is, that every naval lord, and not only the naval lords, but the officers who work under them in all sorts of capacities at the Admiralty—every one of them has come fresh from the sea full of the experience and knowledge gained in this great War and able to give us the benefit, not only of the ability and training which sailors acquire in peace time, but of the actual knowledge which they have acquired, either in holding high commands or in other important capacities during this War in various parts of the theatre of war. It is an inestimable advantage, and I venture to say that it gives an extra authority to the recommendations which the Board of Admiralty-make to the House to-day in regard to the constitution of the Fleet and to its distribution.
8.0 P.M.
We have been told in some quarters that the day of the big capital ship is over. All I can say is that, in the first place, that is not the view of my naval advisers at the Board of Admiralty, and secondly it is not the view, so far as I can find out, of any other great naval country. There is no country which desires to have a strong navy which is not to-day actually laying down big ships, and the theory that the day of the big ship is over is one for which there is not really, if you examine the evidence, one shadow of foundation. In the statement which I have circulated I give some evidence drawn from the actual experiences of this War. It is the fact that the naval advisers of other countries are firmly convinced that the capital ship is as essential a part of any fighting navy as ever it was. That is undoubtedly the case, and my naval advisers are satisfied that the big ship, if you, unhappily, came to war, would prove again, as it has proved before, to be the predominant factor in naval warfare, and that in the end the weight of metal would tell, and that therefore the big ship must, at all events for some time to come, be preserved as an important part of our naval equipment. I know it is said in many quarters—and there are reasons to which
I will not refer why I should not regret the fact—that the Admiralty and the Navy are much too conservative, that they adhere too long to old theories and old doctrines. This is not a political Debate, but if it were I should be inclined to say, when we talk about Conservatives being too crusted, too inclined to stick to old traditions, that it is a good thing to stick to old principles until really new principles are established which you can accept. I have no doubt my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major-General Seely), who was a distinguished member of the Air Force, and speaks with unrivalled experience in regard to the Air Force, will be inclined to say, "You are too blind to the development of the Air Force; you do not realise what the Air Force is going to do." I do not think that charge is well-founded. We are not blind to what the Air Force may do. We are not blind to what the developments may be. All that we say at the Admiralty is that your developments have not come yet, and a great deal has got to be done before you can say with confidence, "You can dispense with your big ships, because we can do all that is required." You will find plenty of evidence in the War for what I am saying. All we say at the Admiralty is that, as we are advised to-day, we see no prospect of the time coming in the immediate future when we can afford to dispense with the big ships. May I say another word from another point of view? It is not only as a weapon of war, or, as we believe at the Admiralty, the decisive factor in the War that the big ship is required, but if you are going to maintain the training and personnel of your Navy at the high level at which it has been maintained hitherto, the big ship is absolutely essential. I do not know a sailor who does not hold—and hold with great vigour and great determination—the view that you cannot train your officers and men thoroughly and effectively unless you have a certain number of big ships in which to make them serve for a period of time. Therefore, whether from the point of view of warfare, or from the point of view of training, it is in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty absolutely essential that the big ship should be maintained. That is our policy, and to that we intend to adhere until much stronger evidence is shown than has been produced up to the present.
I turn now to a question which has aroused a great deal of interest, quite naturally, the Naval Staff at the Admiralty. Of course, I have only been a very short time on the Board, and the last thing I wish to do, or ever have done in my long political career, is to use any language which would seem to be critical, much loss condemnatory, of any of my predecessors in the office which I happen to hold for the moment. But I think in the old days before the War the question of the Staff at the Admiralty had not been thought out or dealt with in a sufficiently satisfactory manner. Then came the War and the urgent need for a Staff, and, under the pressure of the War, a Staff was devised on a much broader basis and of a much more efficient character than anything that had existed before. But it is obvious that work done under the pressure of war cannot be so effectively done as when you are able to regard your problems under the easier conditions of peace. I believe that the Staff as now established at the Admiralty is thoroughly efficient, thoroughly competent for the very important work it has got to do. The predecessor of the present First Sea Lord, Lord Wester Wemyss, who was First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff when I first went to the Admiralty, devoted most of his lime to the working out of a thoroughly satisfactory and efficient Staff system. He left behind him a great part of the work completed The present First Sea Lord took it up the moment he arrived, and I think we have now got a Staff in, as I have said, real business-like working order.
I will not trouble the House with a long description of it. We have got the Chief of the Naval Staff in the First Sea Lord, the Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff, who has charge of operations and other duties, and the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff, and I want to say a word about that post, because it is in this case that the most important change, in my judgment, has been effected. The Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff in future will be charged with the duty of advising the Board of Admiralty, through the Chief of the Naval Staff, as to what are the best types of guns, projectiles, and weapons. Hitherto that has been the duty of the Controller of the Navy. He had two tasks of a totally different character to perform. It was his duty to advise as to
types of guns, etc., and at the same time to advise as to the best method of provision and construction. Those duties will in future be divided. While the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff will be charged with the duty of advising what is the best type of material, it will be the duty of the Controller to devote the whole of his attention to the best way of providing what is wanted by the Navy as a whole, and I believe this division of duties will prove to be probably the most business-like change that has been made for some time. It is due entirely to the present First Sea Lord, of whom I would only say that I ventured to predict what his career at the Admiralty would be when I spoke last on the Navy Estimates, and I can now add this, that he has already gone far to establish as great a reputation as an administrator as he had already acquired as a great naval commander. The duties of the Staff, of course, become more arduous and heavier as the developments of science progress. It is their duty to advise us not only as to what is the best kind of submarine, torpedo, etc., but it is also part of their duty to superintend those experiments which are essential if we are to keep abreast of the times. As the House knows—this is also referred to in the statement—we have at Shandon an establishment where experiments are conducted in various directions and with various objects, notably—this is the most interesting and probably the most important of them—experiments which are connected with helping us to hear what hitherto we have been entirely dependent upon our eyes for seeing. Wonderful developments are taking place, but Shandon is not satisfactory. It is too far away, wrongly situated and too expensive. We hope by the end of the year to be able to give up Shandon altogether, and to substitute for it an establishment at Teddington which will be close to the great National Physical Laboratory there, and which will, therefore, be in touch with it, and enable us to do the scientific experimental work much cheaper than and with equal efficiency to that we are now doing at Shandon. I think I can say from my own personal knowledge and observation that the Staff' at the Admiralty are engaged in daily and hourly examination of the scientific and other problems with which we are confronted, and that we have now got a Staff which will enable us to keep
our Navy thoroughly abreast of the times. It would be wholly unjustifiable if I said that our proposals, while they are economical have not also been framed for efficiency, and my language would have been wholly unjustifiable if I had not been able to tell the House that the Staff are thoroughly engaged in watching every development and in examining for themselves all the possibilities in order that our Navy may be kept, in the most literal sense of the word, abreast of the times.
Let me turn for the moment to our relations with the Air Force. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Major-General Seely) thinks we are too conservative. During the time he, with so much distinction and advantage, held the position of the Representative of the Air Ministry in this House, he more than once paid a very generous, and I think I may add, well deserved, tribute to the Board of Admiralty for their efforts to see eye to eye with him in their joint working. I can assure him and all those like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Benn) who are profoundly interested in the Air Force and convinced—largely from their own practical experience at the seat of war, where they did great and gallant service—profoundly convinced that in the Air Force is to be found salvation for the future, that if we are not prepared immediately to accept as prudent all they advocate and suggest, it is not because we are too conservative, but because, as I said just now, we are entitled, as Trustees for the Navy and the security of the country which the Navy means, to ask that we shall get further and more clearly proved development before we take the view they ask us to take, of what to a certain extent is still a thing of the future I want to make it perfectly clear, for there has been some misunderstanding, that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Admiralty to attempt to depart from the clear and definite policy laid down by the Government, of which I had the honour to be a Member, namely, that the Air Ministry is to be an independent Authority, and that we should look to them for developments of air policy in the future, for the best kind of air machine, the way in which the men have to be trained and so on.
Some advocates of the air go further, and suggest that the Admiralty has not accepted the clear conditions laid down and arranged with the Air Ministry. They go further and suggest that where the two Forces are combined in joint operations the air commander is to be Commander of the Naval Forces. So far as that is concerned, the Board of Admiralty will offer the most strenuous opposition. They maintain that responsibility and command must go together. They are responsible for the Navy. The Navy is the great security for the safety of the country, and they cannot share that responsibility with anyone. This is a matter which will have to be discussed between us later. It is, I think, at present in its infancy. I think, however, it is my duty to state quite plainly as to this matter, that there is no difference of opinion in naval circles or among those civilians who, like myself, are associated with the Board of Admiralty. There is one other question which bears upon this. It has been suggested that if the time has not come, it, at all events, has very nearly arrived when one Minister could represent the three Forces—a Minister of Defence. Speaking for the Board of Admiralty, any proposal of that kind will be most strenuously resisted. I do not know a sailor who can be found who docs not believe that that would be most detrimental to the real security of the Empire. Consistently with these two views which I have sought briefly to express, we are not desirous in any way of interfering with the duties, responsibilities, or rights of the Air Ministry. All we ask is that we shall be consulted as to what we want, and allowed to state what we want, in order to pursue our work properly, and not be interfered with in matters in which in our judgment, freedom of action cannot be separated from responsibility.
We are making, as the House knows, a certain change in regard to the training of our naval officers. The Board of Admiralty profoundly regrets that the time has come that we have to put an end to Osborne. As the House knows Osborne was given by the late Sovereign to the Admiralty as a great training college. We are desirous that reasonable economy should be effected. We feel that the time has come when Osborne and Dartmouth ought to be and can be amalgamated, so that in future cadets entering the Navy will go to Dartmouth
instead of Osborne. We propose that Osborne should be given up in 1921. The age of entry for cadets will be as it is now, 13½ to 14; the special entry will be maintained, the age for which is 17½ to 18½—this for a small number of those who enter. It is believed that the approximate annual number will be somewhere about 120 cadets, and about 15 special entrants. This involves some reductions being made in the numbers of cadets who are now at Osborne.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: What was the pre-War figures of entrants?

Mr. LONG: I have not got it by me at the moment. We are dealing with those who are there now, and for whom there will be no hope to enter the Navy in the future. What we have done is to offer to the parents or guardians of these cadets at the colleges a payment of £300 if before July they choose to withdraw their boys. If, on the other hand, they think that the cadet stands a good chance of passing the final examination sufficiently well to enter the Navy they can leave him. I have been approached by a great many people who want information on the subject, and I am glad to give it now. I myself have been greatly interested in this matter, and I very much regret it is obligatory upon us to terminate the naval career of a great many of these cadets who had hoped to have the right of entering the Navy. If the parents or guardians do not take the £300 offered they can leave their sons or wards till the end of their time, which, I suppose, means anything up to August, 1922. There is no doubt about it—I have been over both establishments myself—I have gone carefully into the subject, and I have consulted the best educational authorities—there is no doubt, I repeat, that the educational training is of a wholly admirable character, and if a boy remains to the end of his time he will certainly be turned out with an education and a training which will fit him either for the Universities or for any other profession.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it would be very convenient—it is I admit a small point, but it is very important—if we could be told whether, when a parent voluntarily removes his boy, that boy will be allowed to sit for special entry examination later on.

Mr. LONG: That, I think is a point well worth consideration, and I will consider it. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend must know that all depends on the number of vacancies there are. We could not give special advantages to any boy who had been removed as against boys who come up from school. But I shall be very glad to consider the point. That is all I have to say about Osborne and Dartmouth. I hope that hon. Members of this House who may be approached by their constituents or by friends as to what will really he the future of the boy at Osborne and Dartmouth will not forget that the boy staying until the completion of his time is really getting a very great advantage. These boys are, in fact, receiving a first-class education and a fine manly English training on very moderate terms This, of course, docs not deal with a question which has raised a great deal of interest, and which is of vital importance, namely, the means of entry into the Navy. It has been said to me in this House, and it is constantly said outside, and very naturally and very properly so, that the advantages which you are giving to these boys should be also given to boys coming from the elementary schools, whose parents are just as strong supporters of the Navy and of the Empire as we are. They ask—Can you tell us how these boys are to get as good a chance of passing into the Navy as the boys from preparatory schools? It is useless to pretend, and, indeed, it is impossible, that two boys, one educated in an ordinary elementary school and the other in one or other of these preparatory schools, where special care is taken to prepare boys, are on an equal footing, and you have to find some means of equalising these disparities if you can. We have not found them yet, but they may be found in some system of scholarships or other form of aid to education, and we are working at that, because we are anxious to give effect to what my predecessor and I have more than once said, that, if possible, we must make it easy or, at all events, as easy as one can, for boys with lesser educational advantages to get into the Navy.
We have at all events made one great stride in this direction, and that is in dealing with the mate question. The mate system was the system by which it was made possible for a petty officer with good ability and conduct to
become an officer and to pass up to the quarter deck. We found that, owing to the age at which these men were promoted, they came to a period in their service when future advancement was denied them, that is to say, a man becoming a lieutenant at the earliest at 28, found as he passed through the various grades of the service that he was shut out from the higher commands—from flag rank. We have now decided upon a development of the system whereby men selected by the Selection Board at 21, provided they be of first-class character and able to pass a certain examination, may, after undergoing a special training, become lieutenants at 23. That does not sound very much, but it is a tremendous stride in the direction of opening the quarter-deck to those who, by circumstances, are forced to enter the Navy through the lower deck. It is a real alteration, and it will be true in future, as far as these men are concerned, that all ranks in the profession will be open to them, and that a man can go to sea with the assurance that, if he be competent, he may rise to flag rank, which, under existing conditions, is impossible.
Further, with regard to the training of officers, we propose that in the future the cadets shall devote more of their time at Dartmouth to general education. They will spend three years and eight months at Dartmouth and eight months on a training ship. Then they will go to sea as midshipmen, and they will be educated afloat under specially selected Instructor Officers. After 2½ years at sea they will become sub-lieutenants; then they will go through a Greenwich College course, passing in tactical subjects and an elementary war course, and subsequently we propose, if we can secure the consent of the University of Cambridge, that one quarter of them shall go through a special course at Cambridge. We believe that that will give a wider outlook to the naval officer of the future, and we are hoping—indeed my naval advisers are confident—that with these means the education and training of the future will be of more general character, and that the officer of the future will be given a better chance than he has hitherto had. That is the view which is held by those who themselves have gone through the training of a naval officer. I am only a civilian. I never was educated anywhere. I spent five very happy years
at Harrow, but I failed to become educated. That, however, was my fault and not Harrow's fault. Therefore, I am speaking not from ray own experience, but from the experience of naval officers who agree that this system will give a better chance to the cadet in the future. Time only will show whether we are right or wrong. At all events, this view is based on close examination of the subject and on experience of men who have been through the training of a naval officer themselves, and they believe it will prove a substantial advance in our naval educational system. As regards the training of officers for the higher command, commanders and ranks below, to the number of about forty a year, will take a staff course at Greenwich qualifying them for work on the War staff at the Admiralty and afloat. Reference is made in the Statement to a change that is being made in regard to the position of the engineer officer and the deck officer. I believe there are some who hold that we are taking a wrong course altogether and are destroying a system which has worked well. This system, which was established sixteen years ago, has gone through several modifications, and we are proposing an alteration now because the experience of every officer with whom I have discussed it, whatever his rank, is that this change is essential if we are to have for the future the engineer officers we need and must have; but the common entry and early education and early training are all retained, which are, in my judgment and in that of the Board of Admiralty, the vital part of the scheme. We are told that it is an actual fact that under the scheme as it now exists you cannot get the necessary number of engineer officers. They must be got. It is not because we want to do something fresh ourselves, it is not because we want to strike out a new departure and get credit for this or that. We are doing it because we believe it to be essential to the efficiency of the Navy in future.
I should like to say a word about the great cruise which Lord Jellicoe made. In some quarters it has been stated that we ought long ago to have expressed our views as to what we mean to do in respect of his reports. If hon. Members saw those reports, I do not think they would be so ready to criticise. They are very long, they require, very careful examination
and they involve very grave considerations. This is not a purely naval question. I am entitled to speak on this with some authority other than that possessed even by naval officers. I had two most interesting years in my official career when I served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, and during those two years I had an experience which no other Secretary of State has ever enjoyed, of presiding in two consecutive years over great Imperial War Conferences when the Prime Ministers of our Dominions, the Ministers of Marine, the Ministers of Defence, Finance Ministers and others were here, and I not only heard those questions discussed at the Conferences, but I had the immense advantage of discussing them privately with those Ministers on many occasions. Whatever may be the view of His Majesty's Government as to our policy for the future in connection with the Dominions, you will do nothing in the way of working out a real scheme until you are able to meet here in London, discuss this round a table and talk it over with the representatives of the great Dominions—and then, possibly, you will arrive at some business-like conclusion. To produce some hasty scheme, simply because we are told we ought to have action in respect of these reports, would be regarded as a criminal action, not only by this country but by the Dominions. It must not be thought we have been idle. We have been in communication with the Dominions on many subjects. We have made one or two steps, small, but important. I hope on our Naval Staff we shall have the advantage of representatives of the views of the Dominions, who will work with us in connection with great naval staff questions. We are a slow people in Great Britain. We come rather slowly to realise even the most patent facts. I speak on this subject with real knowledge and experience. You must go slowly in all these future developments of our great Dominions. They have accepted immense responsibility, they have made heroic sacrifices, they are bearing great burdens, and they will not be hurried into doing anything which may be calculated to interfere with their absolute right of controlling their own affairs. We must approach this subject slowly and cautiously, and I am satisfied that the best solution of this great question of a combination of all
the Empire in one great naval provision will be found most safely and most satisfactorily by the sort of conference I have indicated, rather than by hasty discussions or debates or announcements by the Board of Admiralty. It is impossible to exaggerate the debt we owe to Lord Jellicoe. He bestowed immense labour on the work. He has displayed the greatest tact and immense ability. I hope neither he nor anyone else will think his labour has been in vain.
I should like now to say a word about the Welfare Committee. It was set up in the early part of last year. Its object is to provide the machinery by which the lower deck can express their views and can, if they have them, give utterance to their suggestions as to certain existing conditions and can come into closer touch with the Board of Admiralty than was possible before the Welfare Committee was established. It has just concluded its sittings. It was presided over by Admiral Jerram, and a great debt is due to him for the great services he has rendered to the Navy and the country by presiding over it, and also by the work he did in connection with the pay of the Navy. It has produced a series of very long reports dealing with an immense number of subjects. It is impossible for us—it would be very wrong—to give a decision upon it in a hurry, but I can see from my little experience of the Navy something more than the germ of a great future for the Committee. I am satisfied that if the Committee is sympathetically treated, as I know it will be, by the Board of Admiralty, if under a wise and sensible President free opportunity is given to the representatives of the lower dock to state their case, to put their views, to express their objections to existing conditions, there will grow up a conviction in the minds of the lower deck that they have in the Welfare Committee a real opportunity of getting into close touch with the authorities and of taking an active part, and I am sure it will always be a loyal and honourable part, in deciding questions which so vitally affect their own lives and their own future and those of the sailors who will come after them. Therefore, I attach enormous importance to the Committee, and no Board of Admiralty will ever fail to give it every possible opportunity or to give to its recommendations the most sympathetic and most careful consideration.
I come now to the dockyards. Again we have been very much criticised. We have been told we have been very slow in acting upon the Report of the Colwyn Committee and, of course, the good old gag has been trotted out—whenever critics of any Government of whatever party have nothing else to fall back upon they always talk about red tape. It seems to me that the talk about red tape will have to be dropped, because for some reason or other connected with the War we have recently been using not red tape but white tape. We are told, "You are doing nothing at the Admiralty about the Colwyn Report. It is all red tape." Many people are attacking the Government about wild extravagance. The papers are full of it. Hon. Members in this House are constantly saying that the Government is extravagant and wasting public money. What am I to say to my critics in connection with the Colwyn Report? What did the Colwyn Committee do? The reference to that Committee was to inquire into two questions, one the leasing or sale of our dockyards, the other the building of merchant ships. They reported against leasing, but reported in favour of building commercial ships in the dockyards. Then our critics say, "You have the Colwyn Report. Why have you not done something?" I would remind these critics that, although the Colwyn Committee told us that we ought to build commercial ships, they did not go into the difficult question as to how the work was to be done by the Admiralty. It is one thing to tell the Admiralty to build commercial ships, but it is another thing to arrange for that work to be done satisfactorily by the Board of Admiralty, who have never done such work in the whole of their official career. We had no machinery for building commercial ships. The Committee deliberately stopped at the general recommendation. As soon as we received the Report of the Colwyn Committee I appointed a conference composed of exports to advise the Board of Admiralty as to the best way to set up machinery for the building of these ships. I tell my critics quite frankly that, whatever they may wish or whatever they may choose to say, I had no intention, if I could prevent it, of allowing the Board of Admiralty to be hustled into a position in which We should after six months or twelve months have been open to the
charge that we had wasted thousands of pounds of public money because we had started to build ships when we had no adequate machinery. Therefore, I appointed this expert committee.
What is the position at the present time? One might think that the question of building commercial ships is very simple. It is extremely complex. I have before me a statement drawn up from information given to me by the experts, because I do not pretend to understand this subject. It comes to this, that you can only increase the number of ships which you purpose to build to the extent to which you have men of each of the various trades concerned in the building of the ships. There are a great number of trades concerned, quite distinct one from the other. You may have 10,000 surplus men in your dockyards, but among those 10,000 men there may not be one man whom you want of some of the trades you will have to employ for the building of commercial ships. In the dockyards these various trades, in consequence of the War, got into a state of serious disproportion. We have to-day not nearly enough shipwrights to balance the numbers in the engineering and electrical trades. This is not peculiar to the Admiralty. I am informed that, the same thing applies in the private shipbuilding yards. The same difficulty exists there of this disproportion of the various trades. That this is so is borne out by this fact. We have been more than once asked to build the hulls of commercial vessels, whilst the commercial firms have proposed to build the engines. We said: "We will build the machinery if you will build the hull," but we have not had one single response to that proposal.
We have now decided on laying down two oil tankers. I am not prepared to undertake on behalf of the Admiralty to speculate in wider fields than oil tankers. We are laying down one oil tanker at Devonport and one at Pembroke, and we hope we may be able to lay down another at Portsmouth later in the year, but as to this I make no promise. It must be entirely dependent upon the progress of repair work on ships of the Royal Navy. If we are to go far into this class of work, it can only be done by taking shipwrights from naval work and diverting them from work which may be absolutely essential. We are not prepared to run a risk of that kind. But if
we can, consistently with our duty to the Navy, we shall lay down a third ship later in the year. Any further opportunities of taking in hand work such as is contemplated in the Committee's Report will be watched for and utilised. We may be able to retain a limited number of our surplus men in the engineering trades on such work as overhauling the dockyard cranes. This only means a very small number of men. The number of men in the dockyards to-day is much greater than in pre-War days, while the work is obviously less. This policy of building oil tankers is only a policy intended to avert an unexpected and undeserved trouble which had nothing to do with us. It was due entirely to the fact that you cannot move men back to the place from whence they came because of the housing conditions. If it was not for the difficulty of housing, these men could move freely to the yards from whence they came. It is no good, and I say so most respectfully, to urge the Government on a Tuesday to be economical, and to save money and to cut down expenditure in all directions, and on the Wednesday to tell the Admiralty that they must spend money, which they do not want to spend, on work which they do not want to do in order that a certain number of men can be kept in employment.

Mr. WILKIE: The right hon. Gentleman says there is a shortage of shipwrights. If so, how is it that the Admiralty can discharge so many shipwrights?

Mr. LONG: Who has been discharging shipwrights? The facts are these. A short time ago an appeal was made to the Board of Admiralty by shipbuilding firms in the country. They pointed out that when the War broke out the Admiralty made an appeal to the shipwrights of the country to go on work in the Admiralty yards and that the men went and private work was put on one side. Now they appealed to us for shipwrights, and we thought it our duty to respond to this appeal. Although we did it very reluctantly we allowed a certain number of shipwrights to go. We did not discharge them; they went to private yards. We did it in the interests of the commerce of the country, because we felt that now that the War was over and peace had come we ought to do everything in our power to help commercial shipbuilding. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. He must not misunderstand
me. We are not short of shipwrights in proportion to the actual number of men we want to employ on naval work. In this naval programme that has just been put before the country there is not a penny for now construction. We are not building a now ship. We are only finishing those which are under construction. We have nothing corresponding to our great programme of contract work before the War, which meant the employment of immense numbers of men—some 47,000.
One result of the War has been that we had to postpone repairs. We had not time to do them. In some cases we had not the vacant slips or the unoccupied men. Therefore the ships of the Royal Navy got into arrears with regard to repairs. We have got all that lost ground to recover. But the present position is that our numbers are now 57,000, whereas before the War they were 42,000, and the result of our cutting down is that we are left with a very large number of men—11,000—who are surplus to our programme's requirements. Of those 11,000 a large proportion are not shipbuilders at all. They have boon employed in the Stoics Department unloading stores, and when this work comes to an end they will not be wanted. With a reduction of your Fleet you necessarily get rid of a great deal of work. A great many more are men of the engineering and electrical trades who cannot be employed either on repair work or on merchant shipbuilding in the dockyards, because we have not the shipwrights necessary to balance them. Therefore I ask the House to pause before they blame us for not going in more vigorously for this shipbuilding policy, and to realise that we are not spending our own money, but the Nation's money, and that if we did not go cautiously we might easily find ourselves led into one of these unfortunate experiments which cost the country so dear, which were bad enough in the course of the War and would be wholly unjustified in time of peace.
There is one matter to which I would like to refer, although it is unusual and not connected precisely with the Estimates. I have observed in the newspapers reports to the effect that my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) near me is going to be transferred to some other field of labour. Of course, it is not for me to say how these reports originated, but if they are true I should like to say
that the Board of Admiralty would regret profoundly if my right hon. Friend leaves the Admiralty. I say this for a special reason. I think it my duty for myself, after the short time I have been there, to say that it is a privilege and a pleasure to be allowed to bear testimony to the splendid loyalty and generous goodwill with which he has aided me in this House and out of it. It has been alleged that he is a "Treasury official," and that he has done injury to the men of the lower deck. My own experience and the knowledge which I have gained from the records of the Admiralty convince me that no charge ever had less foundation, and if the officials of the Treasury were here they would have something to say about the statement that he is a Treasury official. So far from being a Treasury official, he is daily engaged in fighting the Treasury, and the Treasury have a holy horror of seeing him on their doorsteps, as they know what the result is going to be. These attacks which were made against him in regard to the Navy are absolutely without foundation, and it is my duty to say so here. As far as the Board of Admiralty is concerned, and I believe as far as this House is concerned, if he be transferred to another field of labour he will carry with him, not only our gratitude for his past services, but our best wishes for his success. I am profoundly grateful to the House for the great indulgence which it has meted out to me. I am conscious that in a statement of this kind there is a great deal that is dull and a great deal that the audience think might be left out. I am conscious that some of it was not put, as more eloquent speakers could do, in the most attractive form. But I have tried to put before the House and the country quite frankly, without reserve, what is the position of the Board of Admiralty to-day, and what are our views and our policy: and I am entitled to say, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, without any doubt, that in our judgment, if this House be pleased to grant to us the supplies for which we ask, we are confident that we can provide a Navy which will ensure the safety of our own land, enable us to do our duty to this great Empire, and prove again, as it has proved through all our history, to be the greatest security for the peace of the world.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am quite certain that I shall be voicing the views of every Member of this House who has been fortunate enough to do without his dinner to listen to the statement of the right hon Gentleman when I say that we are very grateful indeed for not only the matter of that statement but the manner in which it has been made. My right hon. Friend has, I believe, an unequalled experience in high offices, not only with regard to the variety of office which he has held, but also to the care which he has given to each in turn. I am quite sure that that experience served him well in the very trying position in which he has been in holding the House of Commons during the dinner hour from half past seven o'clock, but it was his own choice. We were willing to do anything we could to oblige him, and we must express our indebtedness for his very frank statement, admirable in form, lucid in expression, and able and comprehensive in scope. Perhaps it is not unfitting that I should say from this side of the House, after a statement of the importance of that to which we have just listened, one or two words My right hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Asquith) would have been here in discharging the duty which I am now attempting to discharge, but for another engagement. In any criticism which I may make with regard to policy or lack of policy I hope that it is clearly understood that I regard the Navy as in a class by itself in all public questions affecting the defence of this country. That having been said, we have of course a duty to discharge, in frank and open criticism of the executive as to the manner in which they have fulfilled the responsibility cast upon them.
9.0 P.M.
The first thing I would say is this, and I am very glad to say it by way of congratulation. I have watched, and nobody has had so many opportunities of watching, the efforts at demobilisation and economy of the various great Departments of the State since this Parliament began its work, and as far as I am concerned, I say at once that the Navy compares well and, indeed, favourably, with any other Department in the efforts it has made. Notwithstanding what has been done, I think there is very much room for improvement. There is the question of policy. My right hon. Friend said it was difficult to find a possible naval
enemy; he said frankly that there was no naval threat. I congratulate him on being able to make a statement which is almost without precedent in the case of any First Lord who has laid Estimates before the House of Commons. To be able to say that alone of this country is one of the assets we won out of the War. It is on that point that I wish to press an argument on my right hon. Friend and the Government. I do not think that the comparison which he has laid before us with the year 1914 is the true or the correct comparison. What was the position in 1914? It was a period of the deepest anxiety. From 1910 onwards we remember the troublous years when the Cabinet was almost split in twain on the subject of building further Dreadnoughts. I shall never forget the day when Sir Edward Grey made his statement from that box on the subject of the German press. I think the German Ambassador was in the gallery at the time. From that time onwards, year after year, the menace grew. It was at its height in 1914. The second navy in the world was a very great and powerful navy, and it is no credit to our Navy to run down the German navy. That was the time when our naval expenditure was at its peace height, to meet a menace which we know unhappily resolved itself into the actual catastrophe.
I suggest that the true comparison is not with the period of our national anxiety immediately before hostilities, but with years before that. I would go much further back than 1914, and suggest that the true period should be 1906. I remember that when the Liberal party came into power it was with an express determination to cut down the Naval Estimates. We know what the result was. The facts were too strong for the Government in those days, and we had to go on increasing the Naval Estimates owing to the German threat. That threat has gone for years. The Germans cannot build without our knowing the very first steps they take. They have neither the men, nor the munitions nor the money to do it I repeat that the true comparison is not with 1914, but with 1906, and I press that very strongly on my right hon. Friend, and on the Government. The Naval Staff at the Admiralty have to carry out policy. It is no good talking of what the Admirals do. If a policy is laid down for them they say "Very well, we will carry that
out." If the Government say to the Naval Board that in their opinion we need not regard the European or the world position as seriously as at the moment they are apparently doing, then, of course, the naval advisers will say loyally, as they always do, "Very well, that is your business Our business is to shape the needs of the Navy according to your policy." I believe it would be a perfectly safe position for the country to take to go in for much larger reductions than are at present contemplated.
I cannot tell with what deep gratitude I heard my right hon. Friend refer to the United States of America. It is so easy to make trouble, and at a stage like this it is so easy, if we have the right spirit, to cultivate cordiality. I am quite sure that the words of my right hon. Friend will find a very ready echo in the United States and do far more to bring about hearty co-operation and agreement than all sorts of eloquent speeches at dinners, or even at League of Nations meetings That is the sort of thing for a man in his responsible position to say, and I am thankful to him for having said it. This is what he said: That as far as he and his colleagues were concerned, the dominant idea in their minds was not competition in an increase of armaments, but competition in a decrease of armaments. There is some hope of the peace of the world if that is the spirit animating our advisers and our statesmen in charge, at any rate, of the Admiralty. I should be glad indeed if I could be assured that that spirit animated another great Department of State. I should like to touch, very briefly, on two other points. I welcome very heartily what my right hon. Friend has said as to the hope of the access from the Lower Deck to the Quarter Deck being made very much more easy. I understood at once the real significance of what he said. The age is the point. When a man is over 21, 22 or 23 he gets set, and it is not easy for him to accommodate himself to the real difference which there must be between the Quarter Deck and the Lower Deck, and anybody, however democratic, is talking sheer foolishness when he does not recognise that there must be that real difference. If you want men of the Lower Deck to get to the Quarter Deck you must take them young. It is recognised on all hands that brains are not the monopoly of any class—this House alone shows that—and the country at the present
time is providing a sound education. Another splendid thing which I welcome very much is the development of the Welfare Scheme. That is the sort of way by which you can make men fit to tread the Quarter Deck. It is the kind of thing to train officers fit to command and lead men. It is the atmosphere in which you can breed them. We all welcome therefore, with great heartiness what my right hon. Friend has said, and we only hope that will be developed as swiftly as possible. It will lead to an immense amount of good feeling in the Navy and out of it all over the country. It is the kind of thing that helps to mitigate social unrest in all parts of the community. It is the little things that tell, especially when they are done in time, and I heartily welcome what my right hon. Friend has said.
I hesitate very much to launch my unskilled barque upon the troubled sea of the question of the control of the Air Force and its relations to the Army and Navy. I had no qualification whatever for addressing the House on this point, and I would only urge upon my right hon. Friend the immense importance of preserving an open mind in the matter. It is only natural that there should be prejudice. If I were in the Army or in the Navy, I daresay that I should be prejudiced, and that it would be very hard for me to get rid of that prejudice. We are, however, at the beginning of great developments in the air, and the danger is that some real splendid new development making for greater efficiency and vast econmies may be lost sight of through professional jealousy. We must combat it. In no range of human achievement and promise is there anything approaching the immense possibilities of the air, and this is all that I wish to say: Let my right hon. Friend keep an open mind, and lot him and his advisors see that no natural prejudice—I will not call it pettiness—affects the great national needs in such a question.
I will give one instance from my own observation. I am not wholly ignorant of ships; I have lived among them, and I have seen a great deal of Mercantile Marine work during the last twenty-five years. During the last year of the War I was very much struck with the aerial scouting, a service which we quite inadequately recognised. I remember very well
that at one meteorological station to which I went they were doing wonderful work. I had the opportunity of seeing something of what they were doing. They were under the Navy. There was another air station not far away which was not under the Navy. This meteorological station was able to give them most reliable information as to what the weather was going to be, and they would not listen to them. Time and time again they told them to mind their own business, that they knew when their aeroplanes could go up, and that they did not want their interference. All the time that meteorological station was in constant touch with the Admiralty, and able to furnish most useful information as to the possibilities of the weather for the next twenty-four hours. The other station would have nothing whatever to do with it. The air scouting which was done from that station with the assistance of that meteorological office was admirable. Is it not possible that a very large number of craft used for sea scouting might be saved if this department of the Admiralty were thoroughly grappled with? I only put that in my uninformed way as an example I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will understand, if at a later stage of the discussion I feel compelled to vote for a reduction on policy, that I shall do so with a full and hearty recognition of their work and that of their colleagues and the whole Naval Staff with whom they have been so well associated. I shall do so because I earnestly believe that we have far too large a margin of safety, and that we can safely compare our present position, not with that of 1914, but with that of 1906.

Sir EVAN JONES: In view of the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and also of the more or less blessings bestowed upon him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it has become unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name, but there are one or two things which I wish to say, particularly in connection with the question of the dockyards. I am sure that the House and the country will view with the greatest satisfaction the decision to which the Admiralty have come, which has been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, and which has been expressed with more detail in the memorandum which he has circulated. The question of the Royal Dockyards, and more particularly
of the old-established Royal Dockyards, is one of great national importance. The principle which I would like to establish is the maintenance of the strength and potentiality of those dockyards, viewed in relation to the needs of our naval power. I do not for a moment profess to argue that the strength and the standing of a dockyard should be maintained at any greater ratio than is necessary for its work in connection with the Fleet. From that point of view I had held a certain amount of apprehension about a proposal suggested to the Admiralty—the leasing of one of the old dockyards—which seemed to indicate that there was in contemplation some policy which would mean the disintegration of these great establishments which are such a national asset. The tendency which was indicated in that proposal was, I know, viewed with great apprehension in many quarters. It did seem to show that the thin end of the wedge was being inserted, and we all know that, once the thin end of the wedge has been got in, there is always a great tendency to have it driven home. I am glad to hear that the Government have now decided to put into force the recommendations of the Colwyn Committee, so far as it is practicable to do so.
I am not one of those, who support or approve of Government trading in any shape or form. The more the Government confines itself to governing, pure and simple, the less they encroach upon the domain of private enterprise, the better. The examples which we have had of their attempts in that direction are not such as would encourage anyone in this country to recommend them to go on. I need only mention Chepstowe, an experiment which I hope will never be repeated. The question of our old dockyards is one of an entirely different order. With regard to that, I have no doubt the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), will agree, though he will be likely to put in a claim to equality. I would like to join issue with him on that, and so I know would people in other districts, but, clearly, we are all agreed, and so long as we agree on the main question we will not quarrel about that. These old dockyards which—it must have been in a moment of aberration—the Admiralty proposed to cut off are very important organisations. They are the result of centuries in some cases, of a
century in other cases, of careful adaptation to the purpose for which they were devised. They possess a personnel imbued with an esprit de corps which is not the least element in their value. They have developed with the growth and development of the Navy, and any reduction in their capacity, or in the degree of their efficiency, which would be out of proportion to a corresponding reduction in the Fleet would, I am sure the whole House will agree, be a mistake of the first magnitude. I base this case for the continuation of the standard of these dockyards on the principle of their relation and proportion to the needs of the Fleet. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that when he was looking round the world to-day he could not find a probable enemy. The nation will hear of this statement with relief, though some with regret. We are approaching an era which all have been looking forward to, which may develop into a period of perpetual peace, in which the British Navy will be no longer required. Then the argument for the maintenance of our dockyards goes. But I would submit with great deference that that time is not yet. All of us look with fervent hope and with fervent prayers on our lips to a time when the League of Nations will eventually become an organisation which will result in that happy consummation, but at the same time, with the League as well as with all things in Nature, it will have to have its birth. It is only in the process of being born; it has to pass through the dangerous period of childhood, it has to go through the period of adolescence before, it arrives at the stage of its manhood. During that time the British Navy will be required, and if the British Navy will be required, the British dockyards will also be required, and they will require to be maintained at the standard which is necessary to keep the Fleet in the state in which, to the pride of this country, it has always been. I cannot help referring for one moment to a statement made by a distinguished Admiral, quite recently the First Sea Lord, only about a year ago. He used these words:
The best guarantee mankind has been able to devise for the peace of the world and the security of freedom is the power of the British Navy.
I think that, during this period of development which is to result in a state of peace between the nations of the world, that sentiment will still hold good,
and the British Navy will be required. Again, I should like to refer to the speech made by the First Lord himself, just a year ago, in this House, introducing the Navy Estimates for 1919–20. It adumbrated a policy which the nation everywhere hailed with enthusiasm as the right policy for the Government to adopt. He said, and I quite well remember the cheers with which his statement was received, that the policy of the Admiralty was to reorganise for peace in every way consistent with safety and due economy. He has referred to-night in somewhat similar words to the furtherance of that policy, but he did not express it, if I may be allowed to say so, with the same precision and crispness as he did a year ago. He said:
We know that it is our duty to provide a Navy sufficient and efficient for our Imperial needs. The only plan that we have laid down, and the only plan that we can lay down, is that in the Navy of the future we must be able to show the British flag throughout the British Empire. We believe that that means everything to the British Empire, to its prestige, its greatness and its trading honour. We realise that this country has incurred a tremendous burden as the result of the War, and it will be our bounden duty to avoid any expenditure which can be avoided, and which it is possible to avoid consistent with the safety of the country. But we feel that our bounden duty, our first duty, is to see that the British Navy is able to do its task—a double one—of maintaining and playing continuously a leading part in preserving the peace of the world.
That statement had not reference to any possible or potential enemy, but had reference to the need for the British Navy, enemy or no enemy; and that need, until this era of perpetual peace arrives, will continue. The statement that that was to be achieved with due regard to economy was one of great importance, and the First Lord has shown, by the reduction in his Estimates, that such a course is possible. But the ethics of economy are somewhat abstruse; they might be applied in more ways than one. With regard to their application to the dockyards, the maintenance of a proper standard in the dockyards—a standard related to the standard of the Fleet—not only does not prejudice the case of economy, but it strengthens it. While the Fleet is in being, our dockyards are an economy and a necessity. They are not only that, but they have a great potential value. They
are not only the organisation for equipping the Fleet, but they are an insurance for the future which is of inestimable value.
I should like for one moment to see what the relation of the expenditure on the dockyards is to the total naval expenditure. The First Lord had such a lot of work to do to-night, and he made such a comprehensive statement, and presented the House with such a developed view of the general principles of the policy of the Navy, that he had not, I am sorry to say, as much time left as I think the House would have liked, to develop his argument as regards the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said that he thought the standard of comparison should not be the standard of the future with 1914, but the standard with, probably, 1906. I am inclined to agree with him, because I think we lose nothing. If you eliminate from the gross Navy expenditure, and correspondingly eliminate from the dockyard expenditure, that portion which belongs to new construction, there is very little difference in the comparison between now and 1914 and between now and 1906. The average of the five years before the war, which' I think is a very relevant period to take, is much the same figure as the naval expenditure in 1906. That average of the total naval expenditure for the five years was approximately £44,000,000, of which the total expenditure on the dockyards was £6,000,000, or somewhere between 13 and 14 per cent. That is to say, the expenditure on the whole organisation upon which the business of our great Fleet depends, was between 13 and 14 per cent., or £6,000,000 out of £44,000,000, of the total naval expenditure. If you eliminate the new construction on both sides, you have about the same percentage. The figure for the gross expenditure comes down to £35,000,000, and the figure for the dockyard expenditure comes down to £5,000,000.
The First Lord used the word "criminal" in reference to some action which it was suggested should be taken. I say it would be criminal on the part of the Government in any way to take any course to reduce the efficiency or cripple the potentiality of this great national asset. What applies to the dockyards in the aggregate applies to dockyards individually. As the right hon.
Gentleman knows, I am the more particularly concerned, in the terms of the Motion which I put down, with regard to Pembroke dock. Pembroke, taken individually, deserved the same treatment as all the other docks. Why should this child be singled out and why should it be treated on a principle which is not applied all round? What is its history? It has equal traditions and equal records with all the old-established yards including the particular property of my hon. Friend (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). It has a personnel, which I venture to say is quite equal to the personnel at Devonport. It is situated in one of the finest and most magnificent harbours in the world. It has created round it a community to serve its own needs, and which, if it had not been created, would have involved considerable additional expense on the Government to cater for the needs of the dockyard. To those communities, not only in connection with Pembroke, but all the other dockyards, the Government owe a real responsibility when they come to consider this question of how far they are going to reduce the status of these yards. I am very glad to notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw) is not in his place, because if he had perhaps it might have been somewhat more difficult for me to make the suggestion which I am now going to offer. Before the War, owing to the German menace and owing to the existence of a naval throat and the direction in which it came, the great bulk of our naval power was concentrated in the North Sea. One of the results arising from that was the creation of that great new dockyard on the Forth at Rosyth, a dockyard which only came into operation after the War. There is no further menace in that direction, and the fleets are concentrated in their natural home, the Atlantic. The dockyards which properly belong to the fleet in its disposition now are the old-established dockyards of the South and Western coasts.
If it becomes a question of beginning to cut off any dockyards, or any portions of dockyards, then I submit that should apply to the dockyards which are less advantageously situated away from where the fleet is operating. Undoubtedly, that great dockyard has the most approved modern equipment. That makes it all the more, suitable for conversion to commercial purposes. Its situation further lends
itself to that. It is in the centre of a district which has at hand all the raw materials and necessaries for commercial shipbuilding. It is surrounded by the great iron and steel works and coalfields of Scotland, and when the Admiralty have a dockyard for sale to be used for commercial purposes, I suggest that they should divert their eyes towards the Eastern coast, which is out of the way for the maintenance of our fleet in its present disposition. It is true that under certain conditions the leasing of one or two yards might be a practical question if it were accompanied by the security that the efficiency of the yards would be maintained so that the Government could take possession of it in full efficiency whenever the national interest required. I can well understand that to secure that would be difficult. May I, as a new Member, take the liberty of congratulating the First Lord on the unique position which he occupies in the character of the Estimates which he has brought forward. While preserving the safety and the honour of this country through its Navy he introduces economy. For the first time since the War there is some ray of hope when a Government Department comes here and practically produces an Estimate which, when allowance is made for post-War values as compared with pro-War values, is little, if anything higher, than the Estimates the year before the War. The lesson to be derived from that is this. I hope the other Government Departments who have not yet succeeded in adopting that policy will take heed of the example, and adopt that system that has been adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty, which so admirably shows that where there is a will there is a way.

Commander BELLAIRS: I understand from the last speaker that the First Lord is wielding a sword of Damocles and engaged in slaughtering the innocents. With regard to his admirable defence of the dockyards, I would only make this comment. The growing need of the country is for economy, and the Board of Admiralty have to consider simply what is vital. They are not able to do what is merely useful. They ask themselves what is vital in regard to the dockyards, and that they give; but what is merely useful is redundant, and that they have to get rid of I should like to echo, as a Back Bencher and one who has for many years
past been a somewhat severe critic of the Admiralty, the praise which the First Lord gave to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara). We are very sorry to lose him, but what is the Navy's loss will be the country's gain, and I hope, whatever position he occupies, he will have sufficient leisure to follow the universal habit, which is spreading, of writing his reminiscences. He has occupied the position of Financial Secretary to the Admiralty probably longer than anybody for years past, and he has been a Minister of the Crown longer, in one position, than any other Minister of the Crown. Possibly he has not been so long Financial Secretary to the Admiralty as his distinguished predecessoor, Pepys, but if he writes his reminiscences I hope they will rival those of that distinguished predecessor.
The First Lord of the Admiralty has issued a most admirable White Paper. I have been a student of these White Papers ever since 1886–87, when they first came out, and I do not remember one which conveyed so much instruction and so much reform m regard to the Navy in the past. He has accompanied it by an admirable statement for which he apologises as dull. It was not dull. In regard to all naval statements, it must be said of them that they cannot be witty, and they must be long. You have got to cover the ground fully, and he has covered it very fully indeed. It has not been my good fortune to praise what the Admiralty has done in the past, but I hope and believe the criticism which I have given in the past was inspired by good motives. It is therefore a peculiar pleasure to me to say that I agree with every word that the First Lord has said on this occasion, with possibly the doubtful exception of what he said in regard to a Minister of Defence. I know he has the view practically of the entire Navy behind him, but what we seek is not necessarily an actual Minister of Defence; we desire to bring about some system which will co-ordinate the different services, bringing them together so that there is no overlapping in regard to expenditure, so that every pound is well spent, so that the Air Service gives the maximum of assistance to the Navy and the Navy to the Army and the Air Service. If you can achieve that system through the Committee of Imperial Defence,
that is all we ask for, but it is part of a larger question, the desire of this country to have smaller Cabinets. We have got back to Cabinets of 20, and those of us who believe in this system believe that we can take the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and the Minister for Air right out of the Home Cabinet and put them on the Defence Committee, which would constitute the second Cabinet, in regard to Imperial defence and foreign policy. That is our hope as to what will come to pass.
In the large ground which was covered by my right hon. Friend's statement and by the White Paper, which I have read most carefully, there was one point which was not referred to, and to which I have referred very often in the past. I believe the Admiralty have decided that in the future we are to revert to the old practice of holding a court-martial whenever a ship is lost. My right hon. Friend will pardon me for referring to this matter, because it has been an old grievance of mine ever since the departure from the universal practice of the Navy was made in 1907. They have reverted to that practice, and in this very first case since the reversion one sees the benefit of the old Navy system. A ship called the "Vittoria" was lost in the Baltic. A secret court of enquiry took place. Nobody knew what was the result of that court of enquiry. It was not on oath, and the officers and men belonging to the ship might have felt that they had not been vindicated. My right hon. Friend decided to revert to the old practice of holding a court-martial, and what is the result? The officers and men are put on their trial, they are acquitted with honour, his sword is returned to the commanding officer, and he is vindicated in the eyes of the whole Service, and I think that is what would be the result in most cases of the return to the old practice.
10.0 P.M.
There are certain points to which, if I get the opportunity, I would like to refer in Committee, and one is the question of promotion by selection from the Captains' list. My contention is that we should like to see a very small percentage of promotion by selection from the Captains' list. You need not do it, but the Board of Admiralty ought to demand the right to promote, say, 5 per cent. of the Captains by selection each year if they wish to do so. The question which was
referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), and by the First Lord, of the determination of the Admiralty to give enlarged opportunities for promotion from the lower deck at a younger age, so that a man may say that he can reach the flag list, involves a reference to the question of the scarcity of schoolmasters. I believe it is the one class in the Navy where there is a scarcity of ratings, and of course if these men are to get the education you want, I think you will have to improve the position of the schoolmasters afloat. I would also like to refer in Committee to an enlarged number of public school entries being given, and to the position of the artificer engineers in the Navy. In regard to expenditure, I think the position was admirably stated by the First Lord. The Cabinet lay down the policy, but the Board of Admiralty must decide what is required to carry out that policy. Now the favourite device of the House of Commons is the device resorted to by Sir Robert Peel when he wrote the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1841:
Pray consider the following suggestion. Let us employ in downright earnestness the services we have a right to command from the British Treasury.
I do not think that is necessary. The Board of Admiralty have a right to go to the Cabinet and say, "We want to know what your policy is," and, presuming they have got that policy from the Cabinet, then the Board of Admiralty decide the extent of the armaments they require to carry out the policy. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said the. Cabinet can say to the Admiralty, "You need not take the world position very seriously." That is not a policy. That is simply an expression of pious opinion. Can anybody imagine the Board of Admiralty sitting down to carry out a policy that is given them from the Cabinet, "You need not take the world position very seriously"? They want to know definitely what the Cabinet regard as the danger, and then they can frame a policy to suit that danger. Now my right hon. Friend referred to the old measuring rules. First of all, this House understood that we had two to one of the next strongest Power. Later on the rule became 10 per cent. over the next two naval Powers, and then, before the World War, the rule laid down by the
First Lord of the Admiralty was 60 per cent. margin over Germany in capital ships. We have not at present got any rule with regard to these matters, so that the House of Commons has necessarily got to trust to the Board of Admiralty to a very great extent. There is no doubt the House is appalled at the tremendous expenditure still going on in Armaments. If you add the gross Estimates—and I do not know why we should deal with net Estimates, because the gross Estimates are what constitute the actual expenditure—we are spending on Armaments now £267,600,000 on Army, plus Air, plus Navy under the Estimates now submitted to this House. Of this total, £96,500,000 is the gross Navy Estimates. If you take away from that the expenditure on new construction, you got an expenditure of £77,500,000 as compared with £35,000,000 in 1914.

Mr. LONG: No; that is including the payment of debts incurred during the War.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am coming to that very point. That is after deducting the new construction. The answer to that is that costs have trebled, wages have doubled, and you have got pensions due to the War, so that you have got to deduct £40,000,000 from the 1920 Estimates. You then get £37,500,000, as compared with £35,200,000 for 1914. Obviously, the Admiralty will be able to cut that figure down still further, and we hope they will, because, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have no enemies at the present moment. You cannot forecast the future, but there are, strictly speaking, only two navies with which we can compare our strength at all at the present moment. One is Japan, an ally by diplomatic means, and the other is the United States, an ally by nature. I want to say a word or two about Japan, not as a probable enemy at all, but simply for the purposes of comparison. We are now six times as strong as Japan, which is in the position that Germany occupied in 1900. There is this difference: the programme of Japan is more progressive and more intensive than was that of Germany in 1900. Japan is a great nation with a population of 60,000,000, and expanding. It is a nation with a high military spirit; in fact, following the Armistice, naval manœuvres were carried out on a gigantic scale under the
supreme direction of the Emperor of Japan. The programme which Japan has in view consists of eight battleships and eight battle-cruisers armed with 16-inch guns, while it is proposed to replace all vessels over eight years of age, and not 20 years, as formerly. We may have no programme for next year or the year after, and we shall still be three times as strong as Japan, but the time must come when the position will have to be considered if we cannot, by our example in the reduction of armaments, induce Japan to reduce her armaments, too.
The capital ship is costing now £7,000,000. The docks that will be required for that capital ship will be much bigger docks than we possess, especially in the East, and this brings me to another point. The obvious way to got economy is to bring about an alliance not merely under the auspices of the League of Nations, but, if possible, as has been suggested, between this country and the United States. In such a case, the United States, in conjunction with India and Australia, could very well look after the Pacific, while we could keep a reinforcing fleet in the Mediterranean and look after the Atlantic as well. At present, to show how zealous the Admiralty has been in economising, we have only 16 big ships in commission while the United States have 29—actually 31 to be reduced to 29. The difficulty with the United States is in manning the ships. When I was over in the States last autumn, Mr. Daniels had the resignations of over 2,000 officers on his desk. He was refusing these owing to the difficulty in getting his ships manned. I absolutely agree with what the First Lord said in regard to the United States. It is unthinkable that we can contemplate military rivalry with the United States. Commercial rivalry, yes; but a fratricidal strike between this country and America is absolutely impossible. You could not get the Navy to carry out orders if we ever had anyone as mad as George III. amongst our politicians to bring this country to the verge of war. You could not get it done! Not even Daniels without judgment could possibly bring this country and the United States to war. President Wilson has taught us to look beyond the man to the Nation. I rejoice in the strength of America. I rejoice in any accession to that strength, because it
is so much more towards the defence of the ideals of Anglo-Saxon civilisation for which we all contend.

Commander Viscount CURZON: I should like to re-echo what previous speakers have already said with regard to the First Lord's statement in introducing this Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish to apologise for the length of that statement, but if, as a humble back bencher I may presume to do so, I would congratulate him on the length of the statement and on its very full character. It was a really valuable statement. The First Lord spoke about the reduction of officers. This is a question which must concern the serving Navy to-day very much indeed. He said he had hoped he might have the details when he came to make his speech to-night. May I venture to express the hope that the details will be ready when the discussion is resumed to-morrow, because I know these particulars are very much wished for. The right hon. Gentleman also made an allusion to the U.S. Navy. I think the less said about that great country the better. But it is worth while remembering that the two countries which have a big Navy in capital ships are America and Japan. I very much rejoice at the references of the First Lord to America in his speech. He later on referred also to the light cruising squadrons, and this again raises the question of capital ships. These light cruisers can only show the Flag; they really cannot fight navies in distant waters, and we must remember that the power of those navies entirely depends on the battleship forces behind them.
I should like to refer to the First Lord's remarks in his explanatory statement on capital ships, Many people hold that the day of the capital ship is gone: amongst them is a very distinguished Admiral who generally advises the country to "sack the lot." He looks to the submarine or to the airship to take its place. It is possible he may be right, but at present I disagree with him. People seem to think when talking about capital ships that every torpedo discharged at a ship must hit and sink it. It is a very good thing in this connection to examine the facts as we know them in connection with the late War. When the German fleet was going to be surrendered, I was one of the officers who met the German naval
officers who came to make the surrender, and I asked one of them why it was that the German fleet turned away at the battle of Jutland. His reply was, "Because the destroyers had fired all their torpedoes and they had none left." If the Germans had two flotillas at the head of the line it must have meant forty destroyers, and if each of these had five or six torpedoes, no fewer than 200 torpedoes must have been fired; yet, so far as I know, only one ship was actually hit by a torpedo, so that that reduces the menace to reasonable proportions in that connection. I was told by an officer in a particular ship in that battle that he saw no fewer than 32 torpedoes pass it at one stage of the action, and therefore every torpedo discharged does not necessarily mean a hit ship.
I want to reinforce what is said in this Memorandum as to the value of capital ships. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) made one statement which I really could not quite understand. He said it was no credit to our Navy to run down the German Navy. I have never heard any English naval officer run down the German naval officer from the professional point of view, and I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman was alluding to.
With regard to this statement itself, there are only two serious omissions from it in my opinion. The first is the question of the scrapping policy. I should like to know whether the First Lord can give us a little more information with regard to what ships it is proposed to scrap. I have seen it stated in the Press that it is proposed to scrap all 12-inch-gun battleships and cruisers. I do not know whether that is correct, but I should very much like to know. The French Government has only got seven ships better than these ships, and I very much hope the scrapping policy will not be carried too far. There are still valuable ships capable of rendering a very good account of themselves against ships of a lesser capacity in foreign navies. The other question I should like to ask is with reference to the number of flag officers in commission. We have in the Reserve Fleet no fewer than six Admirals with their staffs, and I should like to know whether this is really necessary in the interests of economy. There are no fewer than six Admirals with the Atlantic Fleet, and in the North of Scotland area
you will find a Captain, and another in the Immingham area. This is in addition to the senior naval officer on the spot in the ordinary way. I hope the First Lord will be able to justify the retention of all these flag officers with their flags flying under present circumstances in the interests of economy. The training of officers is a most important thing. I hope very much that the Admiralty really mean what they say when they talk about more chance of promotion from the lower deck. It is really a most important thing. The lower deck is uneasy about schoolmasters. They did not have their pay raised in common with all other warrant officers, and therefore the point of view of the lower deck is that their status as naval officers is lower, and they think, rightly or wrongly—I do not share the view—that the Admiralty cannot really be sincere in their professed anxiety for promotion from the lower deck if they do not increase the emoluments of schoolmasters to a similar level to that of the warrant officers. If we have a really efficient Admiralty war staff surely they would be able to collect the information and to give advice to the various Dominion Governments, I hope that the Admiralty will make it quite clear as to what will happen supposing the views of the present Admiralty war staff do not exactly coincide with the reports rendered by Lord Jellicoe. I remember seeing in the Press an extract from one of his reports advising that on the Australian station there should be eight battleships and eight battle cruisers. I do not know whether the extract was correct, but it is a very doubtful question whether the present Board of Admiralty would agree with that report or not. There is another point which the First Lord did not refer to, and that was the sports and recreations branch of the Navy. That is a most important innovation so far as the Navy is concerned, and it did a great deal for the Navy during the War. It is in the hands of most capable officers, who are devoting a great deal of energy and thought to really improving the health of the men who man the lower deck. I hope that the motto which is placed before all the young seamen of the Navy when they go in for this course, will not be lost sight of. The first motto is, "Do not play foul." The second is, "Do not chuck up the sponge"; the third "Go
all out to win," and the fourth, "Play for your side and not for yourself." That is very excellent teaching, and teaching which we all might imbibe with great benefit. I hope that the First Lord will, as far as he can, do everything possible for this new branch of the Navy.
We all share the desire for economy, but I hope that our desire for economy will not lead us to forget the value of the Navy, and that when we economise we shall not impair the power of the Navy. It is very important that a sufficient number of men should be either on the active list or on the reserve in order to man the ships should they be so required to do so. Naval power cannot be improvised in a moment, and if our reductions are carried too far or in too great haste, we may do irreparable harm. The international situation was never so unsettled as it is to-day. Therefore, I hope the reductions which we may see in the near future will not be carried too far.

Sir F. FLANNERY: We welcome the intervention in Admiralty Debate of naval officers, and no more welcome intervention has been made than that of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. Especially is that so in regard to his last advice that we should not unduly economise in the Navy. I desire to re-echo the praises which have been given to my right hon. Friend the First Lord for his most comprehensive and lucid statement. For about 35 years I have had an opportunity in and out of the House of hearing statements of successive First Lords, and I never heard one more illuminating and more comprehensive than that to which the House listened tonight. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) made some comparisons based upon the memorandum in the White Paper, between the economic cost of the Navy at the time the War broke out, and its economic cost in the Estimates now before us.
The First Lord endeavoured to make some corrections or modifications of my hon. and gallant Friend's statement. Nothing is more important at present than an accurate comparison between the cost and efficiency of the Navy at the time of the outbreak of the War and under the present Estimates. That is a comparison which I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree is something like
this. In 1914 the gross cost of the Navy was £53,500,000, but from that had to be deducted, in order to make a comparison with to-day, £18,300,000 for new constructions, because in these Estimates there is no new construction. The gross of these Estimates to-day is £96,500,000, and from that figure you have to make two reductions—£19,000,000 for special liabilities arising from the War and another £40,000,000 for continuing expenditure which cannot be stopped because it was started during the War. That leaves for the upkeep of the Navy £37,500,000 for the current year as compared with the upkeep of £35,200,000 in 1914. This shows an extraordinary economy on the part of the Navy when you bear in mind that the purchasing power of £37,500,000 to-day for upkeep is only half what a similar sum would have been when War broke out.

Commander BELLAIRS: That is allowed for.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I did not understand that to be the meaning of the Memorandum, and I am not clear that that is so; but even if that be so, you still have an economy which comes to within £2,000,000 of the former figure, and the comparison is as creditable to the Admiralty as it is to the Government which they represent. These economies may be carried too far in the reduction of the Estimates. The last thing that the country would desire would be a reduction which would risk, not merely the present naval efficiency, but future progress and economy. We have reduced the Estimates by the simple process of abolishing new construction. This naval holiday may wisely last for a year or a couple of years perhaps, but if you extend it beyond that time the result will be that your progress in scientific development as well in the training of your personnel will be interfered with. Reference has been made to Lord Jellicoe and his tour round the world. I wish to refer to a book published a year or so ago by Lord Jellicoe. In that book he makes very serious and grave charges. He makes the startling accusation of lack of complete preparations in 1914. He says the German mines were superior to our own mines. He alleges that German shells were fitted with delayed fuses, of which we knew nothing, which fuses enabled the shells to penetrate the armour of large ships and
to explode inside the ships, thus doing enormously increased damage, whereas our shells, having no such fuses, exploded outside and before they had penetrated the armour of enemy ships.
Lord Jellicoe refers to our relative inferiority in the number of our destroyers at the time of the outbreak of War. These destroyers were necessary for the protection of our big ships, but, being insufficient in numbers, hampered him over and over again in the strategy that he had intended for the carrying on of the War. Lord Jellicoe refers also to the fact that there was no harbour in the North protected from submarines, and he relates how at Scapa Flow there was a difficulty much later than there ought to have been in converting the harbour into a protected harbour. I myself remember, and, indeed, was concerned with, a process which was cruel and a matter of great regret, of sending valuable merchant ships, filled with cement, up to Scapa Flow, in order that they might be sunk to form a break-water. Several dozens of valuable merchant ships were sacrificed in that way in order to make good defects which ought to have been remedied before. Many other things are referred to by Lord Jellicoe, but perhaps the most startling of all was the reference to the absence in our Navy, compared with that of Germany, of proper means of air scouting—a defect which led to the great embarrassment of the Commander in-Chief. These things were no fault of the present Board of Admiralty, and my sole object in referring to them is to emphasise a great truth which, I believe, cannot be emphasised too much, that in your struggle after economy you must not repeat the deficiencies of your predecessors. The Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) referred to the international situation as complicated and dangerous, and possibly he was right. I do not care how clear the political and international atmosphere may seem. It is your duty, and I am sure you will carry it out, to make every possible preparation and such economy as is possible, and without economy if economy cannot be carried out.
The Fleets which the Hoard of Admiralty are maintaining in various parts of the world have been referred to. It seems to me that the Fleets in Home waters, in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, and in the Far East are wisely
distributed, having regard to all the conditions. In ships they certainly do not exceed what is necessary for efficiency or for the training of both officers and men. We must have the British Fleet distributed in all the stations the world over. It has been said that trade follows the flag. We must show the flag so that trade will follow it. It is only by this means that we can fulfil one of the prime functions of the British Navy.
I want to refer to the effects of, this cessation, practically the complete cessation, of new construction, We must build and equip ships if we want to make scientific progress. Scientific progress on paper and in the laboratories and under the new direction of the Director of Research, I am sure, will be very great, but if, it be on paper and in the laboratory and in the Research Department alone it will be futile. We must test every new discovery by trial at sea, and we cannot therefore stop new construction. It may be that we shall build only one instead of half-a-dozen, but we must build one, especially if we wish to make real practical progress. I cannot say what will be the result of this new system which I welcome so much, and which I hope will be carefully and thoroughly organised. It may be, as Lord Fisher prophesied, that we shall have submarine ships increasing gradually in size until they become the capital ships of the future, but, be that as it may, the internal combustion engine, which opens up infinite possibilities, and all the other improvements, will lead to relative perfection of naval construction only if we put the scientific conclusions and discoveries into practice. The evolution will be gradual, but it must be practical by trial at sea. I would like to say one word about the connection which this new department will have with the mercantile marine and with the other commercial and non-naval agencies for discovery and progress. I well remember, some 25 years ago, when liquid fuel was first used in the mercantile marine, that the Admiralty sent one of their officers to watch and report. It was done spasmodically and perfunctorily. I hope now that we shall have a carefully organised system and that it will be co-ordinated as far as possible with all the progress and discoveries that are made in the merchant service as well as in the Royal Navy. Before I sit down
I want to refer to a subject in which the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench (Major-General Seeley and Captain W. Benn) are interested and which is of very great importance, namely, the question of the Air Service in regard to the Admiralty. The reference of the First Lord of the Admiralty to that subject may be summarised by quoting some of the words of the Memorandum to the effect that our craft flying from His Majesty's ships in connection with the command of the sea must be under naval control. I am one of those who have always been very doubtful about the wisdom of an entirely separate Air Ministry. With regard to the Navy, we might as well have a separate Ministry for the Marines. But they are under the administration of the commanders of the ships. If you have a separate Air Ministry it may foster the development and advancement of aviation, but it cannot have executive control of the airships and aeroplanes, which is necessary for the service of the Fleet. You cannot have the command of the sea entrusted to anyone other than the Admiralty and the naval officers. I emphasise the statement in the Memorandum and the very strong, eloquent and clear words of the First Lord. I feel strongly upon the whole question of naval preparation. It has saved our country in the past and it will save us again, if not in our time in the days of another generation. Let us not be carried away in regard to economy in naval preparation by the requirements of the Army. I remember the words of Cromwell, "Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry." If I hear of the League of Nations and the promise of peace for all time I remember I these words of Cromwell. No court of justice can dispense with the strong arm of physical force. The Magistrate must wait for the policeman. And the League of Nations must wait for the policeman of the world, which has always been the British Navy. It can perform any international function or secure the peace of the world only so long as the British Navy is paramount and its strength is not allowed to flag.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The admirable memorandum which the First Lord has issued, and the very sound doctrines which
he himself has expressed, have altogether knocked the bottom out of any criticism. I have no criticism to offer, except on one little point. Moreover, the speeches that have already been made make it unnecessary for me to say more. All that is left for me to say is that, since the Admiralty have decided to accept the Air Ministry as the providing branch to the Naval Air Force, they should insist on having a Naval representative on the Air Council, and naval constructors on whom would depend the future of the flying Navy. There should be naval constructors attached to the Air Ministry to look after the proper investigation of the real flying ships. I urge upon the First Lord that, if he is going to be sure of the future of the Naval Air Service, he must have the Navy represented at the Air Ministry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I welcome the tribute which the First Lord has paid to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. I have sent rather more letters, perhaps, to the hon. Gentleman than most hon. Members of this House, because many old sailors who are not my constituents write to me about their grievances. Those letters receive the most courteous and prompt replies, and, however much we importune the hon. Gentleman in these cases, he always does what we want to the utmost limit of his power. As I am going to speak against the hon. Gentleman in his constituency on Tuesday, I think I may be allowed to say that.
It will be noticed in these Estimates that a great amount of money is being spent on anti-submarine devices and preparations, and this brings home to us what a great pity it was that we were not successful in pressing at the Peace Conference for a declaration that the submarine is illegal. I think we missed a great opportunity. I daresay one or two of our Allies—one in particular—objected to it, and we gave way right along the line. I think we might have stood firm on this one point. It might be said that you cannot prevent nations from building submarines any more than you can prevent them from manufacturing poison gas; but I rather think you can. You cannot build submarines without someone knowing about it. We could have had a system of inspectorates in all countries, to see that they were not built. They have only
been successful, comparatively speaking, against merchant ships, and they are a cowardly weapon. They cannot possibly be used in peace, as aeroplanes can. You can always build commercial aeroplanes, which might be used for war; but the commercial submarine is a monstrosity which no one would dare suggest as a commercial proposition. This is of vital importance to us, dependent as we are at present on sea-borne food for our existence. Would it not be possible for us to try and have this matter opened up again before the Council of the League of Nations? I cannot see what the valid arguments are against making the submarine illegal. I know what the invalid arguments are, namely, those of people who are interested in submarines, and quite justifiably so. They love their work, and they, of course, press for the retention of the submarine. But there is a higher duty than pandering to these interested persons. I do commend that with the First Lord to see if the question can be opened again. We have nothing to lose by the abolition of the submarine. It is an inhuman, cowardly weapon against commercial ships and inadequate and inefficient against the man-of-war May I join with the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) about the tour of Lord Jellicoe? I have a great admiration for the great ability and professional qualities of that distinguished and gallant Admiral, but may I point out this very extraordinary state of affairs? The First Lord told us last year that it would be impossible for him to declare what the actual policy should be and that he could not tell us about the future of the redundant naval officers or the men because the world situation was so disarranged and so on, but at the same time this distinguished officer was sent round the world and went on a tour to the Dominions, and judging by the newspaper reports, he laid down a policy for them. I put it to the House with great respect that that was a waste of money. The First Lord, in his speech, said he looked to the day when he would be able to preside at a meeting of Ministers of Marine from the different Dominions. That is the way in which the future policy of the sea of the British Empire as a whole will have to be decided. There will be a representative from the Admiralty and a combined War
Staff meeting in London or Quebec. I really think this world tour of the distinguished admiral is a bad precedent, and I hope it is not going to be followed. I have already pointed out one way in which economies could be effected by declaring the submarine illlegal. There is a remark in the introductory statement on the Naval Estimates which reads as follows:
All experience teaches that a strong Navy is the surest guarantee of peace.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Plymouth says "Hear, hear." No it is not; policy, peaceful policy is the best guarantee of peace. It was almost in those words were introduced the Navy Bills in the German Reichstag, and they were told that the German Navy was the surest guarantee of peace. No hon. Member of this House is more devoted to the ideal of an efficient Navy than I am, but it is not going to be a guarantee of peace unless we adopt a peaceful policy. I do welcome the statement we have had from the First Lord and from the hon. and gallant Member for Maid-stone (Commander Bellairs) with reference to the United States of America. If we are going to enter into naval rivalry against the United States, let us be quite frank, one of two things is going to happen—I leave war out of the question—we are going to be outbuilt or bankrupt. Any Government which does not pursue a policy of friendly and close relationship with the United States docs not deserve a month's shrift from the British people. I think it right to regret the appalling campaign of calumny that is going on in the United States against this country. It is disastrous, and at the same time I also regret the campaign of calumny that is going on in this country against America. You can see it on the newspaper bills anywhere in London, and it is very unfortunate. It can only be stopped really by a strong expression of opinion in this House, which, after all, must affect public opinion to a larger extent, and that is why I make this appeal. I have heard remarks below the gangway to my horror. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members are somewhat hilarious, but this is a serious matter. The United States Navy came over here and freely exchanged all their naval
secrets with us and we did the same thing by them. We taught them to shoot, which they themselves most generously admit, and now to think we have got to be held up to them as a Power whom they must beat on the seas by over-building us, and egging them on to do this is disastrous for the whole world, which wants peace and disarmament and demobilisation.

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir R. SANDERS in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed:

A. "That 136,000 Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions for the year ending on the 51st day of March, 1921."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

Ordered, That the Lords Message [16th March] relating to the Law of Property Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Four Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of 16th March, to consider the Law of Property Bill [Lords].—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Mr. Betterton, Mr. Hartshorn, Major Hayward, and Major Hills nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.